ESPN shows signs of a brain. Announced today that Ron Jaworski will replace Joe Theisman on the Monday Night Football crew. This is a move I’ve been calling for since they announced ESPN was getting MNF. I don’t even hate Theisman as much as a lot of people. But he shouldn’t be the #1 guy, and he has to be in a 2 man booth. He’s way too in love with himself to be in a 3 man booth. He played off of Kornheiser horribly last year and often made Kornheiser look even worse than he was. I think Jaws personality will be a perfect match with TK. I am hoping TK improves and gets better as he has ways to go. But I’m glad they are giving him another chance. Tirico, Jaws, and TK. Espn, thank you.
Jaws was great last yer with Vermeil and think the best fit would be those two plus a play-by-play. This is a great move though- Theisman is the most self-satisfied guy in the business and Jaws is one of the best.
Dean, funny you bring that up, I say that all the time, that the best broadcasting team last year was only together for one game, when ESPN opened up with two Monday Night Games and needed an extra team. It was Brad Nessler, Jaws and Vermeil and it was like a tease. I even had posted that if TK fails to improve, Vermeil would be next in line, but didn’t want to get to into it so I’m glad you brought it up. Vermeil was excellent on NFL Network during the combine and would be all for adding him to the booth. Like I said though, I’m glad they are keeping Kornheiser just because I like him and wouldn’t like if they got rid of him already. Have to give him at least another year to see what he can do. TK and Jaws are longtime friends and I think this will show.
Vermeil is pretty much my first choice to do anything. I’d literally hire him for any important job- announcer, motivational speaker, teacher, coach, CEO, shrink, surgeon, architect, hit-man, televangelist, bartender, pimp, actor, importer/exporter, beermaster, general, bounty hunter, ect.
Last year I actually tried to spread a rumor that Vermeil was running for president next term with Mora Sr. as his running mate. I still think that would be our best choice by far.
As I was watching the Yanks-DRAYS game last night I realized that I cannot stand Michael Kaye. He treats the audience like they have never watched baseball before. Then made this comment.
Joe Girardi on D-RAYS coach not announcing a closer:
” He’s got a bunch of young arms in the bullpen and is still testing who he wants to close.”
Ken Singletary:
” Well it’s ok for now, plus it keeps the pressure off of these young players that posted an MLB record 60 blown leads last year.”
Michael Kaye:
” Isn’t this what they do in Spring Training? I mean you should have this already figured out.”
SILENCE
Now it doesn’t seem that bad, but you had to hear his delivery coupled with the fact that this is the 2ND GAME of the season. Last time I checked Michael the D-Rays are perenially cellar dwellars with a new coach. Their average player age is 24. But I guess you could make them into a contender over night.
He also went out of his way to describe that in scoring a 6-3 is a groundout to the SS. That was at 10:48 at night, just in case someone was watching baseball for the first time.
Tonight my dad and Joe were discussing a plethora of sports topics, but the first to arise was the Imus debacle.
I personally have to say that Don Imus is a genuine asshole. I don’t know why he would think that it would be alright to call Rutgers, ” Nappy Hair Ho’s,” and that there would be no repercussions. Then Joe was telling me about his “apology” on Al Sharpton’s show.
My feeling is that this is a guy who was the big deal at the station before Stern came along. Then he began to paly second fiddle, never really got back on top of the radio world and has been a miserable drunken prick ever since.
On another note, I know this is the 60th anniversary of Jackie Robinson, but could ESPN PLEASE stop doing these ridiculous reports every minute on it? They are the bane of Sports broadcasting and this is why. Let’s give every ESPN sportscaster a stick every time there is a dead horse present.
ESPN is so self-satisfied with their coverage of touchy issues. I really wish Fox Sports would be broadcast in HD because I prefer the Final Score, with it’s comprehensive and informative reporting to SportsCenter, with its smarmy, contrived human interest pieces. On the plus side, they must have the best makeup people in the world to be able to dress all those huge white dorks up as young black guys.
I’d like to suggest a special place to recommend stories and articles. Here’s on I read today by a person I never really liked, but who I think nailed this piece:
Dean, this is a GREAT idea. Between all of us on here we read a lot of sports and a lot of sites. Love the idea of having a place to post a link to something we love. I will read the story later and comment. I actually found an article where I have an 100% exact viewpoint as yours. A columnist I don’t always like but hit the nail on the head. I think it’s perfect.
Dean’s boy Todd McShay has me angry about his take on Brady Quinn. He writes countless articles about this and was just talking about it on Mike and Mike. He goes on and on about how Quinn is a decent talent. Middle of the first round type of player. Doesn’t like the pick for the Browns at all. His accuracy isn’t great among other things. I can respect all of that and think it’s 100% to think anything he wants. HOWEVER, after all of his countless bashing on Quinn, he then ranks his top players and puts Quinn SEVENTH!!!! Give me a break. If he’s that low on him, he shouldn’t be anywhere near his top 15. I feel like people do this to cover all bases. If Quinn is a bust, he’ll talk about how low he talked about him. If Quinn does great, he’ll mention he had him ranked 7th. This is one of my biggest pet peeves about draft analysis and this is the perfect example.
At halftime of the Lakers-Suns game 1 I liked what Jon Barry had to say. It appeared as if the Suns were in trouble and Kobe Bryant could not be stopped. However Barry said (paraphrasing), How long can Kobe keep this up for? He has to use all of this energy. Even if he does it all game long, can he in Games 2, 3, 4 and 5? The Suns went out and dominated the second half and Kobe slowed down considerably from the first half.
I also liked that at halftime of the Wizards-Cavs game 1, Magic Johnson especially was bashing the Wizards for their play, even though they had a seven point lead. He mentioned the Cavs were playing too slow and that enabled the Wizards to stay fresh. Without Arenas and Butler they are thin. If you push the pace early, you can tire the Wizards out either in the second half, or just later in the series in general. The Cavs won the game, but I agree that I didn’t like how they went about things.
Also, ESPN finally removed Cold Pizza from its airwaves today; 10:00 AM-12:00 PM is a 2-hour time slot that begs for a decent show. One can only watch so much SportsCenter, and Mike and Mike only runs from 6:00 AM-10:00 AM. ESPN has a real opportunity to put on a quality program during this time slot as a link from morning to afternoon programming.
BUT, much to my dismay, ESPN replaces Cold Pizza with First Take…and doesn’t remove Jay Crawford and Dana Jacobson! How these 2 still have a job is beyond me. First and Ten, the segment featuring Skip Bayless arguing against someone new each week (and, probably, the best part of the show, usually due to the insight provided by the guest) is still on. Essentially, First Take is the exact same show as Cold Pizza only with a different name and different studio.
Oh well, at least Stephen A. Smith is the guest this week!
Do yourselves a favor and go to youtube and search for sam mcguffie. watch his 5 minute highlight mixed tape. then check beack with me if you still dont know what the best part is.
On a more important note, have you all read the article about LeBeau/Tomlin using Keisel as an Adalius Thomas-type rover? It’s in the PG.
Dude his entire highlight reel in about the 3-4th minute against that blue team was sweet. The two guys running into each other on his cutback and then the hurdle and stepping on the guys back, like jim carrey did on jack black in the cable guy.
Has anyone noticed Doug Collins Dye Job?….It’s awful, what was he thinking? Also, does Mike Breen have to mention that Matt Harpring comes from a football family every game, I mean interesting tidbits are great here and there, but not EVERY BROADCAST!
Anyone else get a kick out of the Mike and Mike and Mike…and B-squared broadcast team last night for the 2nd game? I thought that Greenie and Golic did a nice job and that Ditka and Bonnie were their usual stellar selves. With TK already doing MNF, there is just so much multi-tasking going on for these ESPN personalities.
Which got me to thinking…as much as I want all the Kornheiser, Wilbon, Greenie, and Golic that I can take, I think that the best MNF crew would be the following:
Play-by-Play: Mike Tirico
Analyst: Ron Jaworski
Analyst: Mike Ditka
Sideline Reporter: Suzy Kolber
Sideline Reporter: Bonnie Bernstein
Essentially, I am saying that Kornehiser, Greenie, and Golic should stick to what they do best (not that they are bad on MNF; rather, they are just so good in their normal roles) and that Michelle Tafoya should take a hike. This leaves us with a tandem of Bonnie and Suzy on the sidelines, some eye candy that everyone is sure to enjoy (speaking of eye candy, I want the world to know that I thought Britney looked pretty solid on Sunday at the VMAs. Sure, she’s not what she once was, and yes, her performance was brutal, but she looked pretty appealing for being a mom and having gone through all the shit that she has gone through over the last few years. It’s just such a damn shame what happened to her, really…she was once at the core of the HOT BABES universe!
First of all, the addition of Jaws and subtraction of Theismann did wonders for the main announcing team. Tirico, Jaws and TK were actually laughing together and laughing together often. Big difference from last year when it appeared that Theismann basically hated everything that Kornheiser said. I still think Kornheiser uses a little too much of his writing background in the booth, always looking for stories, but I enjoy him nonetheless. He often asked Jaws questions last night and obviously Jaws always has the answers. I’m not sure if Kornheiser will ever be great but I’m glad ESPN didn’t pull the trigger on him yet.
Couldn’t agree more that Tafoya needs to take a hike and Bernstein should be the main sideline reporter. Lets face it, the sideline reporter is one of the worst things in sports, so it might as well be a hot woman.
Mike, Mike and Mike were good. I thought the main negative was they often tried to be too serious. What makes Mike and Mike great (or is it different?) is their sense of humors. However it is only natural to assume that they might get more comfortable as time went on if they were in a permanent role. Ditka is great and provided great insight. I didn’t think he was always on the same page as Ditka but it was great that even when Ditka would say something totally opposite from the other two, they’d be too scared to disagree.
I feel like Mike and Mike’s dream job is the Monday Night Announcing Team. In the last 8 years their popularity has risen through the roof. I don’t know if a 3rd guy would be added or not (Ditka, Stink, Spielman, etc) but I feel this is ESPN’s ultimate plan.
It seems like the NFL is always trying to make Monday Night Football special. Last year it moved to ESPN and they had an opportunity to do whatever they wanted. Instead they signed Tirico, Theismann, and Kornheiser and it was basically no different. I often wonder if there’s just nothing that can be done. Howard Cosell is legendary and seemingly unmatched. Growing up MNF WAS Al, Dan and Fred but I wonder if they seemed special because we were young and didn’t really know them previously. Now, anyone they put on, we’ll think of them before they did MNF and not think of them as special. Last night was great. Part of me also wonders if the way to make Monday Nights special again is to always have two games. Was I the only one that thought last night was extra special? I will admit, the obvious downfalls….one game is too early, the other too late and it basically ruins your Tuesday, are definitely downfalls. Nonetheless it’s something to think about.
Props to Britney for bein a milf but man is she wacked out. Was Sarah Silverman’s standup the worst comedic routine in the history of comedy routines?
My vote is definitely for B2 to be on the sidelines for every game I watch. She is and has by far been my favorite for the longest time. As far as Mike’s cubed, I didn’t hear much, but agree that I liked MT, TK and Jaws. I definitely was glad to see Theisman get the boot, he was god awful. I almost murdered a guy with my bare hands Monday night when he told me his fave cre of all-time was Mike Patrick, Theisman and Paul McGuire, they were awful.
Speaking of awful if West Virginia continues to play early Saturday games on ESPN or it’s affiliate I am going to puke( which is going to happen the rest of the season) PAM WARD is so bad. She apparently did no research and kept calling Pat McAfee, our kicker, KEN! Then some apparent stat boy came up and corrected her. Listen, I know there’s alot of information to remember and she’s not the only person at fault for this, but as a former AMATEUR broadcaster, I hate nothing more than when a PBP or Color commentator doesn’t do there homework. To the common fan just watching a WVU-Marshall game they don’t care, but for me or anyone else watching their beloved team, they don’t want to hear names get slaughtered or frequent miscues and corrections, it ruins the atmosphere of the game. Give me Mark Jones at the very least and do away with Pam Ward!!
Not only was she pathetic in repeatedly calling McAfee “Ken” but I blame ESPN even more. She obviously has no clue what’s going on. There’s 50 ESPN people on the crew. How doesn’t one person tell her during a commercial his name is Pat?
One funny thing about Kornheiser. When Ray Lewis was initially injured TK went off about how he’s indestructable and what does this do to the Ravens. Tirico goes, “He missed 24 games in the past 5 years and hasn’t played a full season since 2003.” Classic TK bein so wrong.
Rich Gannon did the Steelers game and I really thought he was good. Actually, when I listen to announcers it’s almost to the point where if I can stand you that means you’re one of my favorites. That’s how bad most of them are. I look for a few things and Gannon had them all. He didn’t say anything incredibly stupid or annoying. He was smooth and had a fine voice. He provided good insight at times. And possibly most important, he was critical and not afraid to call out the Browns for sucking when they sucked. I’d be perfectly fine with more Gannon.
I really enjoy the team of Chris Fowler, Craig James and Doug Flutie on ESPN Thursday night college football. Flutie, especially is great. My favorite line from this past Thursday……
Craig James was talkin about Texas A & M’s big RB Jorvoskie Lane, going on and on about how you can’t be deceived by his size, he’s got the best and softest hands on the team.
Mike Tirico has been chosen to replace Dan Patrick on ESPN Radio’s main time slot in the day, from 1-3. I really don’t like this choice. Tirico is a nice guy and a very intellectual guy but I want someone that’s also going to be funny, witty, etc. I just don’t see Tirico as that guy.
My personal top choice was Max Kellerman. He has a radio show in the NY/NJ area and is someone I really like. His smarts and knowledge are incredible and I just really like him. I think Pittsburgh’s own, Mark “The Super Genius” Madden would have been an amazing choice but not surprised that he wouldn’t get selected.
Chris Spielman has a local show in Ohio and would have also been one of my top choices. He’s great, speaks his mind and is the man.
It’s tough to really complain until I heard who the alternatives were. I’d like to see who else was thought about and considered.
Tirico will have 3 rotating sidekicks, Kirk Herbstreit (sweet), Scott Van Pelt (sweet) and Michele Tafoya (WHAAAAAA?!?!).
I really enjoyed the MNF broadcast last night. While a major reason why could have been the fact that the Steelers won by 31 points, I also think that the performance of Tirico, Kornheiser, and Jaworski was solid. I think that TK’s opening dialogue every week (last week on Favre, this week on the Steelers dynasty) is superb. Whenever Bradshaw went into the booth, I thought the atmosphere among the 4 was terrific.
Looking forward to the premiere of Dennis Miller’s show on Versus and Frank Caliendo’s show on TBS.
I find myself hating Kornheiser’s ingame dialogues. I love TK as a person. I think he’s great at joking around. Him with Jaws has been infinitely better than it was last year. He probably has gotten better. But the one thing that will never change is how he treats the game like he’s a newspaper reporter. And I think it’s horrible.
Far too often it’s, “Could tonight be the night that Trent Edwards takes the job and never gives it back? Just one year ago the QB on the other side of the field, Tony Romo, took the job on Monday Night and is now one of the top QB’s in the game. Could this be Edwards turn to do the same? Could it Jaws?” First of all, that’s completely ridiculous. Second of all, they had about 7 points at the time and it was the first half. I also don’t think he really knows much about the game and just has story lines set up. I could come up with many more examples of this if I felt like it.
Last week Vince Vaughn was in the booth bein real sweet of course. They mentioned Cutler and Vaughn said, “Isn’t he the guy that did a ton of reps at the combine?” The three guys had NO IDEA. NONE. Didn’t even comment on it. How am I sitting there agreeing, thinking “Yes, 23 reps, maybe 24.” and those 3 guys had no idea. I thought that was poor. They love having guests in the booth and it can be funny and good but also not sure if that should be part of the game. I’m ok with it, though, as they don’t have much great to say with just the 3 of them.
The booth is a lot better than last year, but I think Kornheiser is a newspaper writer at heart and will always treat the game like one, annoying the shit out of me in the process.
I actually like Young’s insight from time to time. While I don’t know how good he would be if he were on all the time, I am fine with getting some input from him from time to time.
Ha, my boy in terms of all time QB, not an analyst. Man I’m watching ESPN and think Steve Young is an ass that has been horrible and Emmitt Smith is better on every point made.
The best (and probably worst) thing about Gus is this…
I am sitting in my office doing some homework with the game on in the background. Every 5th play or so, Gus starts screaming like Derek Anderson just completed a Hail Mary or something. I run in to the kitchen to see what happened when I realize that it’s just Gus being Gus…Anderson didn’t complete a Hail Mary, he simply threw the ball away after being chased out of the pocket. But it was an AMAZING throw away!
Wow, is there anything better than The First Team on Fox Sports Radio anymore? “Just a bunch of guys talking sports and having fun. Wake up with The Czab!”
Seriously, though, Steve Czaban, Scott Linn, and Al Galdi just bring it every morning, serving as solid competition for Mike and Mike. The beauty with the two shows is that it seems like their commercials are almost opposite each other, allowing us fans to listen to both shows each morning.
The games are clearly the best part about The First Team. From “Lock and Load” to “I’m So Done With…”, you really can’t beat the games. As Haver likes to point out, this allows The First Team to have listener input, which Mike and Mike does not have.
This morning, The First Team had the SuperFriends game on. In this game, each of the three mentioned guys, along with Steve Sullivan (I think that’s his name), have Super Powers and will answer callers’ questions accordingly.
The Czab has the Super Power knowledge of Golf and Electronics. Scott has the Super Power knowledge of Porn and Pop Culture. Galdi has the Super Power of American Idol and Pro Wrestling. And Sully has the Super Power of MMA and Poker.
This, obviously, got me to thinking about the Four Horsemen here on WCG and what our Super Powers would be. Here’s what I’ve got…
Wells: Football Knowledge/Connections, Internet/Electronics Guru, Big East Fanatic
Haver: High School Sports and Recruiting, College Sports, NBA Expert
Dean: MMA, Poker, and Anything that calls for a lot of Intelligence (History, Current Events, Philosophy, etc.)
Nah i think the Orange Bowl was Kenny Albert, Daryl Johnston and Barry Alvarez. Perhaps you were confused by Jeanne Zelasko resembling a man. I know you singled out Chuck Davis, but I actually think every single FOX BCS announcer is horrible. The premise of a network that has zero college football games throughout the year having the 5 biggest games of the year makes no sense. But then the guys they use are awful.
Good point…the FOX guys really are horrible the whole way around. We need guys like Verne, Danielson, Musberger, Herbstreit, etc.
It was great to hear Verne doing the Louisville-Kentucky basketball game on Saturday. The beauty about Verne is that he really never goes away as he covers College Sports and Golf.
Now that Gary Thorne no longer does NHL (he will do the Frozen Four, though), I really enjoy the tandem of Doc and Edzo on NBC’s broadcasts. The Winter Classic was sweet.
Not surprisingly, I am pretty much obsessed with the Primaries. I am a big fan of both Rudy and McCain; with Rudy recently dropping out of the race, my choice has become much easier…I fully intend to support John McCain in his bid to become President of the United States of America.
I would guess that you too, Dean, tend to lean to the right, so I am anxious to see who you plan to support. On the Democratic side, I wish that both candidates would just go away. I guess if I had to support one, I would choose Obama for the simple fact that at least he has a penis.
Back to the Republicans, I just can’t bring myself to get that into Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee. That being said, I would most certainly vote for either one should they win the Republican ticket.
Truth be told, I actually think that the next President is indeed going to be McCain. It’s hard not to at least respect a guy that spent over 5 years as a POW, eh? I think his selection of his potential running mate will certainly be interesting as I have heard the names of Rudy, Huckabee, and Joe Lieberman mentioned already.
Super Duper Tuesday is less than a week away…it’s gonna be sweet!
This year I’ll be voting republican regardless. I prefer Obama if it’s going to be a Democrat. Some say he’s the more liberal of the two, but I think he’s more interested in the country than his party. As many of the greats have said in one form or another, a man who is not a liberal at age 20 has no heart, and a man who is not conservative by age 40 has no mind. You have to choose a side to advance in American politics, and as such the view you carry most passionately will determine your public stance on everything else. In other words you can’t effectively fight for fiscal conservatism without being pro-life, or work towards a liberal domestic agenda without being anti-Iraq war. At least you can’t from public office. I’m not necessarily questioning Obama’s liberal beliefs, but I think that at the very least he’s the kind of man who will be lead by logic rather than party politics.
But like I said I expect to be voting republican. I’m not as visciously opposed to McCain as some are, although I think they have a point. It’s an interesting debate whether or not it’s worth sacrificing the Presidency to send the message that the republican party will not be taken over by mavericks or moderates. Personally I doubt any conservatives actually stay home, particularly if Clinton wins the nomination.
A couple weeks ago I was pretty torn, kinda leaning towards McCain, and still interested in hearing more from Romney and Guiliani. But now I’m pretty set on Romney.
There are two things about Romney that are troubling. One is the flip-flopping and the other is his lack of national defense experience. The flip-flopping is tough for me to get too upset about. Romney is a Morman republican from Michigan, and he won the governorship of Mass- that takes some politicing. I give the same benefit of the doubt to all the candidates. In addition, what’s wrong with changing your stance when new information comes to light. While that’s not the case with issues like abortion, as I already said part of success in politics means compromise. You gotta be flexibile on any socially conservative issues if you’re planing to go anywhere in the Northeast. I can understand if a a hard-core social conservative would insist on consistency on abortion, gay marriage, etc, but I think you’re missing the boat if this stuff is make-or-break for you.
Why do I like Romney? Here’s a big example:
Question from the California debate: What do you think about Arnold’s tough policy towards emissions requirements?
Huckabee, Paul, McCain: blah blah blah states rights blah blah.
I have no problem with that, but it’s a blatant party response that doesn’t tell me shit about you.
Romney: Paying a billion a day for oil to people who may use some of that money against us is bad. We’re probably hurting out enviornment as well. But if all we do is tighten regulations in our country, companies will simply open plants elsewhere. The polution will stil affect us, and we will lose jobs. States have the right to choose, but we need a global solution.
This tells me that he actually thinks about the big picture, rather than focusing on the surface level fluff.
“Help poor peope!” “Help the enviornment!” “Stop fighting!”
Those all sound nice. But reaity tends to get in the way of all these great ideas.
I think McCain is a good guy, and I believe he’s the best commander and cheif among the candidates. I think doing what you think is best, whether it goes against your party or not, is admirable not deplorable. But I don’t believe McCain’s judgment of what’s best for the country extends beyond foreign policy. I think Romney understands why things happen in our economy, and I think he will pursue a fiscally conservative agenda. That’s why I support him.
I have a lot more ammo so I hope this turns into a discussion.
Not a real shock that we would disagree, Dean, but I am glad to see that you are at least choosing the RIGHT side.
The way that I see it, the race can be broken down as follows…
-One candidate is a woman
-One candidate is black
-One candidate is a Mormon
-One candidate is a white male
For our purposes, I am discounting Mike Huckabee as a finalist. Looking purely at the demographics of the individuals involved, and I don’t wanna hear any bullshit about how this shouldn’t matter because it does, I really don’t see how anyone could vote against McCain.
While I don’t disagree with your assessment of Romney, I, for one, cannot get past his Mormon beliefs or his flip-flopping. To me, you just can’t change your beliefs, and Mormons seem to have some weird ones, on things as controversial as Abortion.
Nevertheless, if Romney somehow overcomes McCain – and all accounts seem to be pointing to a McCain-Clinton finale – you can bet your ass that I will be firmly in Romney’s corner.
Regardless of who you are “rooting” for, tonight has been quite entertaining to follow. Huckabee actually did a little better than I thought that he would, although both he and Romney have some catching up to do.
I wish I could say the Mormon thing doesn’t concern me at all. The seperation of church and state is a big deal to me, but something about those Mormons just gives me a bad vibe. At the beginning I favored McCain and this issue, along with the utmost trust I place in the man’s nat defense judgment, made it an easy pick. Even as I’ve shifted to Romney it remains a nagging concern.
You wrote in so many words that the demographic “baggage” of the main contenders makes McCain an absolute no-brainer. Obviously there are limits to even that statement, and I’m curious what they are. For example, if McCain were running on Ted Kennedy’s liberal record, Obama were running on Fred Thompson’s consistently conservative platform, and Hillary were Reagan’s daughter instead of Clinton’s wife, would you still choose McCain (at this point) on the basis of race? In such a scenario would you be able to get past Romney’s faith and consider him the lesser of evils? I agree with you that these things do in fact matter, but I’m wondering when you’d draw the line.
I don’t want to make this McCain-Romney thing too polarizing because I still go back and forth myself. There are several questions you might want to think about that I’ve been struggling with myself, but before I ask your opinions I’m interested in your stances on some basic things.
1. It sounds like you’re conservative accross the board. (Maybe not, we’ll see). How would you rank the following in order of importance *right now*: national defense and foreign policy, immigration, the economy, social issues.
2. How would you rank the following conservative ideals in terms of what’s most important to you over the next 50 years: promotion of conservative family values, economic policy, smaller government.
3. Neither of these men appears to be a predictable choice. Either could surprise us with the way they handle their business. *IF* both men could be counted on to carry out the ideas of his campaign, and if race, religion, etc, were non-factors, whose policies do you prefer, McCain’s or Romney’s?
4. I think it’s fair to say that McCain should be described as a moderate republican, if not something further to the left. Not that there’s anything fundamentally wrong with that, but the fact remains that he hasn’t been consistently conservative on immigration, the economy, or the first ammendment. I’m a slippery slope guy in addition to being generally conservative, and I’m betting you are too. Does it concern you at all that a McCain presidency could re-establish the base of the party further to the left?
5. George Washington and his boys warned against intangling international relations, and they were serious about maintaining an isolationist attitude. Much has changed since the days when it would take months to assemble a small invasion force in foreign lands. After Iraq is resolves, do you prefer to stay out of the problems of the rest of the globe, or do you believe it is either our responsibility or simply in our interests to get involved regularly overseas?
I’ll give my thoughts on all this as well. There are some issues I’d like to discuss but it makes sense to see where we stand first.
First off, please let me state that I simply feel honored talkin’ politics with Dean!
With that in mind, I think you’re 100% correct in that the demographics only take the candidates so far. In the scenario that you present, I would like to think that I could overlook Romney’s faith and consider him the lesser of the evils. Of course, the reason that I even bring up the demographics is to use it as an advantage for my argument in favor of McCain. I happen to like McCain the best, and considering that I think his backrgound is the one that I am most comfortable with to boot, I have no choice but to use it to my advanatage.
For the record, I certainly don’t want you to think that I am upset or mad with your preference for Romney at this point. Part of what makes America great is the fact that we are all free to select whomever we wish in elections such as these. Furthermore, it’s obviously a lot easier for me to sit here and not be upset with you about Romney with my guy, McCain, firmly out in front in the running for the GOP bid. With that in mind, I can tell you without a doubt that I will be throwing at the TV anything that I can get my hands on if it’s Clinton that is having her arm raised in victory in November.
To answer your questions…
1. I would like to think that I am more conservative than I probably actually am, if that makes sense. I rank National Defense and Foreign Policy #1 in your list of items (always will), followed by the Economy at #2, Social Issues at #3, and Immigration at #4.
2. I would rank the items just as you have them listed: promotion of conservative family values, then economic policy, then smaller government.
3. Believe it or not, I still think that I side with McCain’s policies. When it comes to Immigration, of which I previously mentioned isn’t of greatest concern to me, I tend to side with McCain’s policy of allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the United States and provide a path to citizenship that includes paying fines, learning English, and meeting other conditions over Romney’s policy of returning the illegals to their country of origin.
4. It doesn’t necessarily concern me that McCain is considered to be a Moderate Republican because, when it’s all said and done, I, too, am probably more Moderate than I tend to believe. In addition, I believe that the right VP selection (Rudy?) could help to offset some of the more moderate views that McCain has.
5. I believe it is either our responsibility or simply in our interests to get involved regularly overseas. I cannot stress enough my belief in the importance of our National Security and Foreign Policy; this, more than any other reason, is why I favor McCain over Romney. I believe it is our duty to defend our country and its ideals both at home and abroad (I would join the military if my fiance’ didn’t promise to break it off with me if I did so). In fact, I’ll take it a step further and say that had past Presidents put more of an emphasis on such issues, perhaps 9/11 wouldn’t have occurred (for the record, I absolutely despise when Clinton says how it took her husband to clean up after Bush I and it will take her to clean up after Bush II. Right, and had your husband spent more time running the country and less time getting head in the Oval Office, perhaps things would have turned out differently!).
That’s all I’ve got for now…hopefully, my thoughts give you a better feel for where I’m coming from. Simply put, I consider myself to be a Conservative who strongly values Homeland Security and Foreign Affairs. I look forward to reading your thoughts.
That comment about the Clintons is totally on point. Eight years is not that long- you can neglect plenty of issues and be out of the way by the time consequences are felt. Even more bothersome to me is this notion that since the economy flourished during the Clinton years, the standing administration must be responsible. That just demonstrates a lack of understanding of economics. So the tech stocks that were trading at absurdly high earnings multiples only crashed back to reality because Bill Clinton left office? I’m not saying that Clinton mortgaged the future for prosperity on his watch- my point is that many events happen *during* a presidency that are not *because* of a presidency. The economy in particular is a cyclical beast, and I’m still waiting for a democrat to highlight for me those actions of Clinton’s that caused the economic climate of the 1990s. Likewise I don’t blame Clinton for 9/11, but are we really expected to believe that the terrorists got pissed, got organized, and came after us all during Bush’s first year? This is not to admonish our leaders of all responsibility for the events of our time. But we live in a world of countless variables and it’s intellectually dishonest to blindly equate correlation with causation for partisan gain.
Your answers to the priority questions are interesting, mainly that your core philosophical emphasis is on the social issues- family values etc.- yet at the present time the economy and especially foreign policy are pushing that agenda down in priority. I think there are a lot of people who feel this way. The country has been going down the shitter morally for decades, and many conservatives feel that no one is fighting this trend. But people worry about their safety and their money, and I think many peopele are begrudgingly focusing on those issues this year.
Romney has pulled out. I’m not furious about this and I’m interested and optimistic about four years of John McCain, but I am left with a bad taste in my mouth about a few things.
One is how few people came out to endorse Romney compared to McCain. Endorsements are political in nature and it’s not uncommon for people to wait for a favorite to emerge and hop on the bandwagon, but I’m disappointed that no one would go out on a limb for Romney. There are some perfectly fine reasons to support John McCain- if foreign policy is your hot issue, if you like the concept of a non-partisan thinker in command, or if you just trust him to stick to his guns and confront the unknown challenges of the next four years in an honorable way. But I’m surprised that so many self-desribed republicans could get past his straying from the conservative agenda. It makes me wonder if: A. these people are more interested in themselves than the conservative movement, or B. the conservative movement itself has become merely an outlying faction in what’s become a coalition party. Either way I fear that this is a bad sign for the country. Conservatism doesn’t need to win out on every issue, but it needs to remain strong enough to keep things in balance.
Secondly, I was looking forward to the Romney-Clinton or Romney-Obama debates. The strategy in a primary is much different from that of a general election. If you watched any of these early republican debates you saw what amounted to a contest to see who was the most dependable advocate of party ideals. For emample, if the question was on national defense then each answer would be certain to include a line about staying on offense. It was more about voicing a commitment to conservative values than it was about analyzing the data we’re faced with and articulating actionable solutions.
This is unfortunate for Romney in my estimation because I believe that analysis, reason, and approaching issues in a way that’s more pragmatic than sentimental are concepts that are all right in his wheelhouse. The other campaigns tried hard to downplay his achievements and experience in the “real world”, but it was a mistake for voters to accept this. The most pathetic problems inherent to government are generally a product of the fundamental ways it differs from the private sector. Survival in the private sector is all about results. Survival in government is all about making friends, trading favors, and protecting your image. In the private sector you undertake a project if the benefits outweigh the costs. In government you undertake a project if it sounds like a good idea and will gain you favor. You learn a unique decision-making style when you are in business for yourself, because every dollar that you spend could’ve been in your pocket. When you’ve spent your whole life in public office you see things differently- money is simply something that flows in and needs spent on one thing or another. And apending is only one example. The pragmatic mindset is what’s important in business and it’s what we could use in Washinton. I often feel like the Democrats pat themselves on the back for the compassionate ideas they spout without analyzing the fall-out openly and honestly. (Of course it sounds nice to protect the American worker with tariffs or protect the enviornment with corporate emmissions crackdowns if you choose to ignore the repurussions that would ultimately wash away any intended benefits and hurt the consumer.) Romney is a realist, and win or lose in November I think the country would’ve benefited from the hearing him explore our problems without the republican party microscope to deal with.
I suppose my other regrets are less important. I’ll likely support McCain because I think electing either democrat carries with it several concerns. One, we’d be open to practical, real-world problems if/when what I consider to be our fairly effective healthcare and national defense strategies were altered. Two, I may disagree philosophically with government-mandated morality, but I think conservative supreme court appointees will make this country a better place- by my standards of course. Three, the liberal approach to the private sector is fundamentally bothersome to me. Business regulation and wealth redistribution are NOT the purposes of government, and regardless of what’s going on at the present moment I will always strongly oppose any momentum for those un-American concepts.
That said, I think we’ve lost a great opportunity with Mitt Romney out of this race, including the simple loss of his presence in the general election debates. In 2004 I favored Bush because I wanted 2008 to be a fresh start for both parties with no incumbant. I won’t go as far as to say I hope a democrat wins so that Romney can run again in 2012, but I certainly hope that he will remain in the picture and become an important leader in the republican party.
I earned a great deal of respect from Romney as he announced to the country that he is withdrawing from the race to be named the next President of the United States. The fact that this man is willing to put his beliefs and ideals (and those beliefs and ideals shared by many in his party) above his own personal glorification is extremely honorable. The best part is that I couldn’t agree more with his line of thought: Regardless of who is in office, the most important aspect is that we, as a country, stick to our ideals and beliefs. By withdrawing with honor, I believe Romney has set himself up for a lucrative career in politics moving forward.
With that in mind, however, I have heard some grumblings today about the possibility of Romney running on the GOP ticket as the VP to McCain’s President. While I am sure that Romney is probably not interested in such an idea, I am led to believe that he would be a solid choice. Romney’s more conservative views, alongside McCain’s more moderate views on things, would certainly help to unite the Republican Party in its quest to maintain the status quo.
While I can understand the disappointment expressed by many regarding Romney’s decision to drop out of the race, I am completely heartened (is that even a word?) by the fact that there are people out there willing to put aside their own potential benefits for the benefit of the greater whole. I hope that this admirable action by Romney will indeed help to unite the GOP party and keep the woman or black man out of the Office of the President!
I read an article by renowned poker thinker Mike Caro about why carrying a bias can be a productive thing. He was speaking in terms of poker of course, but I think the concept applies nicely to other things. His idea was simple- confront each poker decision with a pre-determined action in mind, in this case to check or to bet. If you choose ‘bet’ as your default action, you would look at the situation from that perspective and try to find a reason to check instead. By doing this you force yourself to truely explore a poker scenario from opposing points of view, rather than simply acting in the direction of the first piece of evidence you see. Try this out sometime and you’ll see that you quickly begin to think on a deeper strategic level. And it works in other areas as well.
I think this is a great habit to get into when dealing with politics in particular because the issues can be so polarizing. It’s natural to support those positions that’ve been taken by our party, our parents, or a politician that we respect. It’s also natural to find ourselves drawn only to the facts and evidence that support our stance when we’re “learning” more about the issue. It’s not necessarily a subconscious cop out- it’s normal for a liberal-minded person to read the New York Times, or for a conservative to listen to Sean Hannity. But to really challenge yourself and your positons try your best to find a reason to change your own mind.
This is a good execise for analyzing specific positions that you’ve held for awhile, to the point where you may have forgotten why, but I think it’s also healthy to come up with certain core value statements to serve as a starting point for exploring a new idea. As long as you identify this form of bias you can use it in a positive way. The concept of limited government is the principle I use as my home base. Anytime a controversy springs up regarding the steps our state or federal government should take to solve a certain problem, I take the position of limited govenment and try to work from there. Philosophically I believe that government was created solely to protect individual liberty. If ten of us founded a small farming town, we would’t elect a sherrif to redistribute our crops or to tell us what kinds of tools we could use. His role would be that of a peace keeper and arbiter of justice. As unified territories get larger and life gets more complex, government has a tendancy to grow and develop along with the rest of society. Some people embrace this trend as a sign of civilzation. I reject the notion.
This position is my starting point for lots of these tough questions, including abortion. As with any question of whether or not the government should be preventing this or regulationg that, my assumption is that it should not. Now it’s up to me to change my own mind. When it comes to certain social issues this doesn’t take me long, but abortion is a different because we are now forced to clarify our definition of liberty. On one hand outlawing abortion means telling a woman what she must do with her own body. Anyone who understands the sanctity and importance of property rights to the develoment of our civilization cringes at such a notion. But on the other hand we’re getting at the very essence of the need for government in the first place- the protection of liberty, particularly the liberty of those who are unable to protect it themselves. Regardless of your religious beliefs, philosophical leanings, or defintion of the seperation between fetus and human, the abortion issue represents the collision (and really what amounts to a stalemate for a lot of people) of two fundamental notions. That’s what makes it such a tough issue.
There’s another interesting dilema from a cold, practical standpoint. I think people who have abortions are by and large selfish and immoral. Do we really want such people to pass their genes on? In addition, stats show us that candidates for abortion are much more likely to become a burden on the state should they become an actual live human. Doesn’t our poor/stupid population grow disproportionately accross the globe to the detriment of society already?
Abortion is certainly always a hot button issue as it usually forces oneself to examine the issue from each of his perspectives…socially, religiously, etc. I think you bring up some interesting points in the respect that one should view the issue for oneself, attempting to not take into account what one has been taught and perhaps believed his entire life.
Speaking from a personal standpoint, I am Pro-Life. My typically conservative viewpoints, along with my Roman Catholic beliefs, serve as the basis for my stance on this controversial issue. Going along with what you stated, I do indeed believe it is the government’s right to protect the liberty of those who are unable to protect it themselves.
With that being said, I wish to make it clear that, while this is my belief, this is not one that I feel I need to impose my will on others. I fully believe that it is quite naive of anyone to say they believe one way or another without ever having been forced into the situation that surrounds this topic. I mean, just because I consider myself to be Pro-Life, does this mean that I would be opposed to an abortion if my fiance was raped and became impregnated from some douche bag burglar? While I would like to believe that my view would still stand firm, I think it’s extremely difficult to sit here and tell you that for sure.
The point that I am trying to make, I suppose, is that, while I consider myself to be Pro-Life, I don’t think it’s necessarily my place to force my belief on someone else. However, I do believe that is is government’s place to protect the liberties of those that cannot protect them for themselves. So, in summary, I am Pro-Life and I believe that government should be, too. However, I am not so stubborn about it to the point that I can’t understand it from the other side.
I’M PRO DEAN! (not in this conversation Raibs…IN LIFE!)
This conversation is so above me but I’m gonna post now before it gets even worse. I tend to think I’m Republican but am probably more of an Independent just because I don’t feel I’m knowledgeable enough to really know. I know Mitt is already out but even before that the Democratic race is far more important to me than the Republican. I’m basically fine with anyone becoming our next President other than Hillary. I can’t stand her and don’t want her as the President. I want Obama to win very badly. As for the GOP I’m fine with any of them.
Looking at the candidates I probably too often do the look test and similar to how I view coaches. John Kerry looks like a horse…Bush makes hilarious sound clips…I’ll vote for Bush. I just really can’t stand Hillary and everything about her. I feel like Obama’s biggest drawback is being married to Manute Bol. I could be completely wrong but I feel like Hillary is all about being a woman, not just a candidate but Obama is moreso about being a candidate not just a black one (although if his name was Pat O’Callahan I realize he wouldn’t be a candidate right now). McCain’s a badass…don’t know if it’s a positive he’s been around so long (great experience, knowledge, etc) or a drawback (if he wasn’t good enough the past 200 years why now?) but this does seem like as good as time as any for him to be our leader with our present world the way it is. Romney is a great lookin man and I obviously like that. I didn’t know him before he flipped his flop and I didn’t know Huckabee when he was fat so it’s tough for me to hate them because of how they were but yet I understand that there are concerns about them. So yeah, I can look at them and rate them on their wardrobes or good looks but ask me who’s foreign policy I like the best and I look at you with a blank stare.
At this stage in the game I’m hoping for Obama vs McCain and to go in open minded about voting for either. It’d be better for me to have just two guys to worry about and really pay attention to their actual views and what they believe in. As for some things talked about, I definitely liked what was said about Romney’s illegal immigrant policy more than McCain’s. I’m for killing all illegal immigrants on the spot so sending them back sounds a lot better to me than allowing them to stay. I don’t even know how I’d rank those options given now or in 50 years.
I know Romney is a flip flopper, and I guess it sounds like I was some huge Romney fan and I really wasn’t, but part of me also feels every politician is a bullshitter, flip-flopper, and gonna say whatever will be best for him at the time so I guess the flopping doesn’t matter to me as much as others. Cheat to win! It does seem like with some things said above, that Romney came away without the nomination but looking good and a potentially good future. This has to be McCain’s last chance so it seems to have worked out well that McCain advances and Romney lives to fight another day.
By the way, if anything I’m saying is just completely wrong, feel free to let me know but don’t try to argue with me because I really have no idea.
I kinda hate to say it because of the way I was raised and because of my parents but I personally just have to be Pro-Choice. When 16 year-old blacks have a kid I’m gonna want that kid murdered eventually so might as well take care of it early. Ok, that’s a bit harsh but there’s just too many situations like the douche bag burgular for me to say that I’m strictly Pro-Life. I feel like it’s easy for parents to just say, “Well dont have sex in college.” It’s like, “Just don’t drink til your 21.” Just unrealistic. Sometimes I just believe it’s not good for a baby to be brought into this world in a situation that isn’t good. And it’s tough for me to say that I’d be able to let 50% of me just simply taken for adoption, although it’s a great option for people that are fine with it. I’ve had friends involved with abortions and it’s tough for me to say they didn’t make the decision that was best for them.
I find myself watching more and more of Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. These primaries have really intrigued me and I like kinda knowing what’s going on. I look forward to learning a lot more about the candidates. If anyone has a great link to a big list/grid of issues and what the candidates beliefs are that would be fantastic for me.
I hate to butt in in the middle of your guys conversation but I have a good question for you. Because I’m not incredibly in to politics I actually think it’s ridiculous when someone says they agree with everything that one person believes in. In all honesty as much as I hate Hillary there are probably some issues that I’d agree with her stance on. I feel like that’s being honest with myself. Anyway, Raibs is clearly a McCain guy and Dean is/was a Romney fan. You guys know a lot more of what you’re talkin about than I do. But tell me some issues that one of the other candidates actually has a viewpoint you like more than your candidate. Gotta be some, if not many out there.
That’s a great exercise. Politics are a lot like sports in that a lot people have a favorite team that they root for through thick and thin. It gets worse around election time. Whether you are firmly entrenched in one party or you are totally on-board with an individual candidate it’s easy to choose your beliefs based on your affiliations rather than vice versa. This is a great question and it forces us to keep it real. Unfortunately I’m going to have to tackle this tomorrow because it’s 3 am.
I’ll try to come up with some sources to reference the candidtaes positions. Keep in mind though that all of these people have a couple key values or beliefs that make them who they are and determine their party affiliation, but in a lot of cases they have adopted some positons for political reasons. For example northeastern republicans like Guliani are forced to go liberal on some issues in order to appease a left-leaning population. McCain has spent the year repositioning himself further right on several sunjects to assure the conservative wing of the party that they’re on the same page. And I’m sure there have been many fiscal conservatives who have been pro-choice of heart but have chosen a reversal in stance over political suicude. This is the nature of politics. You choose your line on the big issues, but the rest fall into line based on state you’re running in, the opponent you’re challenging, or the party whose nomination you’re seeking. Appeasement is a fact of life in politics, and we can only hope that the leaders we choose have sound judgment on which issues can be sacrificed and which must be stuck to.
This is kind of why I wasn’t overly concerned about Romney’s flip-flopping. They all do it anyway, and if you want a Mormon republican running Massechusets he’s gonna have to stay a little loose with his positions. If you believe that you’re the best man for the White House, but you won’t bend on an issue to gain that post, haven’t you done the country a grave dis-service?
By the way don’t disparage your understanding of politics too much. Most of the people who seem to have a lot of knowledge have simply chosen a side, along with a radio show or periodical that supports it, and only parrot the party lines. Everything you wrote made enough sense. Keep learning and talking about it, because not enough people do. I was at a bar in Boston founded 250 years ago, and it struck me that back then it would have been filled with discussion and debate over the politics of the time. When I was there we were all watching SportsCenter.
This isn’t really a precise answer to your question because it’s not so much a position as a level of trust, but I prefer John McCain’s attitude, experience, and judgement as the commander and cheif of the United States military to that of Mitt Romney. Unfortuinately all of the GOP candidates positions have become pretty difficult to differentiate. The campaigns know what positions will make for the most favorable platform, and we’ve seen each candidate ease into a mainstream republican posture on everything.
Both McCain and Romney have come out in support of our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both have verbally committed to continuing our efforts in the region until our objectives, which remain quite vaugue, are reached. And both have articulated support for a Reaganesque expansion of our military. Assuming you agree with these positions on the surface it comes down to three questions: 1. Are these positions sincere? 2. Who is better equipped to convert their rhetoric to an actionable agenda? 3. Who do you trust to make judgements as things change?
With the questions I raised in mind, I’ve decided that I trust McCain more in the role of commander and cheif. Although I’ve made it clear that I believe that Romney is the smartest and most logical condidate, I think McCain has two things going for him that will help him in this role. One, McCain actually has an understanding of military operations that’s rooted in personal experience. On top of his own service, McCain has worked as a military historian for his memoirs about his father and grandfather. I believe these experiences give him a deeper appreciation of the causes and effects of military tactics and foreign policy strategy. Two, McCain has been criticized for flying by his own compass in the past and ignoring the agenda of his party. The conflict in Iraq and surrounding regions is losing popularity as the Democtaric Presidential hopefuls are playing on the war-fatigue of the American people. Now I’m not sure if our actions over there will prove to have been the right ones in the coming decades, but I do know that I trust military men to make strategic decisions not politicians. Romney has said he will keep troops over there for now, and to have said anything else would have finished off his campaign. We don’t know which way the wind will blow over the next four or eight years, but I trust McCain to continue on the course he believes is the right one no matter what happens or how the ignorant populace feels about it.
To summarize, McCain’s instincts are more finely tuned than Romney’s on this matter, and he will continue to be guided by them through thick and thin.
Do you guys watch the Democratic debates? I’m really starting to wonder what an Obama presidency would be like.
I wish I knew a little more about how easily a universal health plan could get passed. That’s one of the things I dislike about the Obama agenda, as well as closing tax “loopholes” that supposedly give money back to the rich*. Presidents always want to do a lot of things but wind up with new problems once they reach the White House, as Bush did with the Sept. 11 attacks. My hope will be that if elected Obama will be unable to get his plan through Congress, although the ‘06 elections really hurt this hope. (Dems won back the Congress in ‘06).
I realize that it’s naive to vote for a man, then hope that his programs fail or that his cabinet turns him to the dark side. But there’s something to be said for voting for the most gifted and talented candidate. I still plan to vote for McCain, but part of me would like to see what Obama can do.
*As an aside, all of the rhetoric when it comes to the taxes of those considered to be rich pisses me off. So what if Warren Buffet’s tax rate is less than his secratary’s? The amount he contributes to the local, state and federal governments each year is astronomical. Just once, instead of using verbage that implies that the rich are screwing the rest of us out of revenue by fighting to keep more of what they earn like everyone else, why can’t a democrat say something like this: “The rich create jobs that we need, compete in the free market enterprise system to improve the quality and cost of the products we use, and contribute more to this country in terms of tax dollars each year than the average middle class earner will in a lifetime. We also recognize that if anyone is going to get a chunk of their tax dollars back, the rich man is infinitely more likely to use those dollars as investment capital, thereby creating even more jobs and making the market for good and services even more competitive to the benefit of the consumer. Unfortunatelty, our party’s philoshophy calls for gigantic government program outlays, and it’s unrealistic for us to get the money for these projects from any other source. We would like to thank those in this country who have had the courage, foresight, and innovative spirit to succeed in a competetive business world to the benefit of the entire population of the United States, and we apologize that we need to take by threat of force assets from you that are severely disproportionate to the utility you will receive from the projects and programs that those assets will finance.” Just once.
ESPN shows signs of a brain. Announced today that Ron Jaworski will replace Joe Theisman on the Monday Night Football crew. This is a move I’ve been calling for since they announced ESPN was getting MNF. I don’t even hate Theisman as much as a lot of people. But he shouldn’t be the #1 guy, and he has to be in a 2 man booth. He’s way too in love with himself to be in a 3 man booth. He played off of Kornheiser horribly last year and often made Kornheiser look even worse than he was. I think Jaws personality will be a perfect match with TK. I am hoping TK improves and gets better as he has ways to go. But I’m glad they are giving him another chance. Tirico, Jaws, and TK. Espn, thank you.
Haver
March 26, 2007
Jaws was great last yer with Vermeil and think the best fit would be those two plus a play-by-play. This is a great move though- Theisman is the most self-satisfied guy in the business and Jaws is one of the best.
thegreatawakening
March 28, 2007
Dean, funny you bring that up, I say that all the time, that the best broadcasting team last year was only together for one game, when ESPN opened up with two Monday Night Games and needed an extra team. It was Brad Nessler, Jaws and Vermeil and it was like a tease. I even had posted that if TK fails to improve, Vermeil would be next in line, but didn’t want to get to into it so I’m glad you brought it up. Vermeil was excellent on NFL Network during the combine and would be all for adding him to the booth. Like I said though, I’m glad they are keeping Kornheiser just because I like him and wouldn’t like if they got rid of him already. Have to give him at least another year to see what he can do. TK and Jaws are longtime friends and I think this will show.
Haver
March 28, 2007
Vermeil is pretty much my first choice to do anything. I’d literally hire him for any important job- announcer, motivational speaker, teacher, coach, CEO, shrink, surgeon, architect, hit-man, televangelist, bartender, pimp, actor, importer/exporter, beermaster, general, bounty hunter, ect.
Last year I actually tried to spread a rumor that Vermeil was running for president next term with Mora Sr. as his running mate. I still think that would be our best choice by far.
thegreatawakening
March 29, 2007
As I was watching the Yanks-DRAYS game last night I realized that I cannot stand Michael Kaye. He treats the audience like they have never watched baseball before. Then made this comment.
Joe Girardi on D-RAYS coach not announcing a closer:
” He’s got a bunch of young arms in the bullpen and is still testing who he wants to close.”
Ken Singletary:
” Well it’s ok for now, plus it keeps the pressure off of these young players that posted an MLB record 60 blown leads last year.”
Michael Kaye:
” Isn’t this what they do in Spring Training? I mean you should have this already figured out.”
SILENCE
Now it doesn’t seem that bad, but you had to hear his delivery coupled with the fact that this is the 2ND GAME of the season. Last time I checked Michael the D-Rays are perenially cellar dwellars with a new coach. Their average player age is 24. But I guess you could make them into a contender over night.
He also went out of his way to describe that in scoring a 6-3 is a groundout to the SS. That was at 10:48 at night, just in case someone was watching baseball for the first time.
Billy Packer Sucks Too.
Wells
April 6, 2007
Tonight my dad and Joe were discussing a plethora of sports topics, but the first to arise was the Imus debacle.
I personally have to say that Don Imus is a genuine asshole. I don’t know why he would think that it would be alright to call Rutgers, ” Nappy Hair Ho’s,” and that there would be no repercussions. Then Joe was telling me about his “apology” on Al Sharpton’s show.
My feeling is that this is a guy who was the big deal at the station before Stern came along. Then he began to paly second fiddle, never really got back on top of the radio world and has been a miserable drunken prick ever since.
On another note, I know this is the 60th anniversary of Jackie Robinson, but could ESPN PLEASE stop doing these ridiculous reports every minute on it? They are the bane of Sports broadcasting and this is why. Let’s give every ESPN sportscaster a stick every time there is a dead horse present.
Wells
April 11, 2007
So I was watching the Dallas-Vancouver OT game last night and had one question…
Is there a cooler name for a hockey reporter OR any reporter for that matter than BOB BEERS??
Wells
April 12, 2007
ESPN is so self-satisfied with their coverage of touchy issues. I really wish Fox Sports would be broadcast in HD because I prefer the Final Score, with it’s comprehensive and informative reporting to SportsCenter, with its smarmy, contrived human interest pieces. On the plus side, they must have the best makeup people in the world to be able to dress all those huge white dorks up as young black guys.
thegreatawakening
April 12, 2007
I’d like to suggest a special place to recommend stories and articles. Here’s on I read today by a person I never really liked, but who I think nailed this piece:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hill/070412&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab1pos1
thegreatawakening
April 12, 2007
Dean, this is a GREAT idea. Between all of us on here we read a lot of sports and a lot of sites. Love the idea of having a place to post a link to something we love. I will read the story later and comment. I actually found an article where I have an 100% exact viewpoint as yours. A columnist I don’t always like but hit the nail on the head. I think it’s perfect.
http://www.kansascity.com/182/story/66339.html
Haver
April 12, 2007
Another social commentary from the swarthiest hog in the business……..
http://sports.espn.go.com/stations/espnradio1250/story?id=maddencolumn070416
thegreatawakening
April 19, 2007
Interesting read from espn.com Also has significance because my brother (Ed from Pittsburgh) asked the question.
http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/columns/story?columnist=joyner_kc&id=2814191&univLogin02=stateChanged
Haver
April 21, 2007
New Yorker is always good if you’re into the topic. This one’s about Manny Ramirez.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/23/070423fa_fact_mcgrath?currentPage=7
thegreatawakening
April 23, 2007
Good read for all of you MMA fans:
http://www.sportsline.com/mmaboxing/story/10144881/1
Raible
April 24, 2007
Some analysis lately I’d like to comment on.
Dean’s boy Todd McShay has me angry about his take on Brady Quinn. He writes countless articles about this and was just talking about it on Mike and Mike. He goes on and on about how Quinn is a decent talent. Middle of the first round type of player. Doesn’t like the pick for the Browns at all. His accuracy isn’t great among other things. I can respect all of that and think it’s 100% to think anything he wants. HOWEVER, after all of his countless bashing on Quinn, he then ranks his top players and puts Quinn SEVENTH!!!! Give me a break. If he’s that low on him, he shouldn’t be anywhere near his top 15. I feel like people do this to cover all bases. If Quinn is a bust, he’ll talk about how low he talked about him. If Quinn does great, he’ll mention he had him ranked 7th. This is one of my biggest pet peeves about draft analysis and this is the perfect example.
At halftime of the Lakers-Suns game 1 I liked what Jon Barry had to say. It appeared as if the Suns were in trouble and Kobe Bryant could not be stopped. However Barry said (paraphrasing), How long can Kobe keep this up for? He has to use all of this energy. Even if he does it all game long, can he in Games 2, 3, 4 and 5? The Suns went out and dominated the second half and Kobe slowed down considerably from the first half.
I also liked that at halftime of the Wizards-Cavs game 1, Magic Johnson especially was bashing the Wizards for their play, even though they had a seven point lead. He mentioned the Cavs were playing too slow and that enabled the Wizards to stay fresh. Without Arenas and Butler they are thin. If you push the pace early, you can tire the Wizards out either in the second half, or just later in the series in general. The Cavs won the game, but I agree that I didn’t like how they went about things.
Haver
April 24, 2007
Great article on Kiper vs Mayock!
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/richard_deitsch/04/24/mayock.kiper/index.html
Haver
April 29, 2007
RICH EISEN!!!!!!
http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/view/1520
Haver
May 3, 2007
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07124/783436-100.stm
No comment…I am too excited to even say anything.
Raible
May 5, 2007
Interesting read on UFC vs Boxing:
http://www.mmanews.com/ufc/The-Way-It-Is-And-Not-Much-Else-Mayweather-Sherk.html
Also, ESPN finally removed Cold Pizza from its airwaves today; 10:00 AM-12:00 PM is a 2-hour time slot that begs for a decent show. One can only watch so much SportsCenter, and Mike and Mike only runs from 6:00 AM-10:00 AM. ESPN has a real opportunity to put on a quality program during this time slot as a link from morning to afternoon programming.
BUT, much to my dismay, ESPN replaces Cold Pizza with First Take…and doesn’t remove Jay Crawford and Dana Jacobson! How these 2 still have a job is beyond me. First and Ten, the segment featuring Skip Bayless arguing against someone new each week (and, probably, the best part of the show, usually due to the insight provided by the guest) is still on. Essentially, First Take is the exact same show as Cold Pizza only with a different name and different studio.
Oh well, at least Stephen A. Smith is the guest this week!
Raible
May 7, 2007
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/05/13/steelers/3.html
Dunno if you Pittsburgh guys read this yet, but a little look at Tomlin.
Wells
May 14, 2007
Do yourselves a favor and go to youtube and search for sam mcguffie. watch his 5 minute highlight mixed tape. then check beack with me if you still dont know what the best part is.
On a more important note, have you all read the article about LeBeau/Tomlin using Keisel as an Adalius Thomas-type rover? It’s in the PG.
thegreatawakening
May 17, 2007
Dude his entire highlight reel in about the 3-4th minute against that blue team was sweet. The two guys running into each other on his cutback and then the hurdle and stepping on the guys back, like jim carrey did on jack black in the cable guy.
Wells
May 18, 2007
Has anyone noticed Doug Collins Dye Job?….It’s awful, what was he thinking? Also, does Mike Breen have to mention that Matt Harpring comes from a football family every game, I mean interesting tidbits are great here and there, but not EVERY BROADCAST!
Wells
May 24, 2007
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07157/791792-194.stm
Raible
June 6, 2007
Good article from Kirk Herbstreit:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/preview07/news/story?id=2990155
Raible
August 28, 2007
Anyone else get a kick out of the Mike and Mike and Mike…and B-squared broadcast team last night for the 2nd game? I thought that Greenie and Golic did a nice job and that Ditka and Bonnie were their usual stellar selves. With TK already doing MNF, there is just so much multi-tasking going on for these ESPN personalities.
Which got me to thinking…as much as I want all the Kornheiser, Wilbon, Greenie, and Golic that I can take, I think that the best MNF crew would be the following:
Play-by-Play: Mike Tirico
Analyst: Ron Jaworski
Analyst: Mike Ditka
Sideline Reporter: Suzy Kolber
Sideline Reporter: Bonnie Bernstein
Essentially, I am saying that Kornehiser, Greenie, and Golic should stick to what they do best (not that they are bad on MNF; rather, they are just so good in their normal roles) and that Michelle Tafoya should take a hike. This leaves us with a tandem of Bonnie and Suzy on the sidelines, some eye candy that everyone is sure to enjoy (speaking of eye candy, I want the world to know that I thought Britney looked pretty solid on Sunday at the VMAs. Sure, she’s not what she once was, and yes, her performance was brutal, but she looked pretty appealing for being a mom and having gone through all the shit that she has gone through over the last few years. It’s just such a damn shame what happened to her, really…she was once at the core of the HOT BABES universe!
Raible
September 11, 2007
First of all, the addition of Jaws and subtraction of Theismann did wonders for the main announcing team. Tirico, Jaws and TK were actually laughing together and laughing together often. Big difference from last year when it appeared that Theismann basically hated everything that Kornheiser said. I still think Kornheiser uses a little too much of his writing background in the booth, always looking for stories, but I enjoy him nonetheless. He often asked Jaws questions last night and obviously Jaws always has the answers. I’m not sure if Kornheiser will ever be great but I’m glad ESPN didn’t pull the trigger on him yet.
Couldn’t agree more that Tafoya needs to take a hike and Bernstein should be the main sideline reporter. Lets face it, the sideline reporter is one of the worst things in sports, so it might as well be a hot woman.
Mike, Mike and Mike were good. I thought the main negative was they often tried to be too serious. What makes Mike and Mike great (or is it different?) is their sense of humors. However it is only natural to assume that they might get more comfortable as time went on if they were in a permanent role. Ditka is great and provided great insight. I didn’t think he was always on the same page as Ditka but it was great that even when Ditka would say something totally opposite from the other two, they’d be too scared to disagree.
I feel like Mike and Mike’s dream job is the Monday Night Announcing Team. In the last 8 years their popularity has risen through the roof. I don’t know if a 3rd guy would be added or not (Ditka, Stink, Spielman, etc) but I feel this is ESPN’s ultimate plan.
It seems like the NFL is always trying to make Monday Night Football special. Last year it moved to ESPN and they had an opportunity to do whatever they wanted. Instead they signed Tirico, Theismann, and Kornheiser and it was basically no different. I often wonder if there’s just nothing that can be done. Howard Cosell is legendary and seemingly unmatched. Growing up MNF WAS Al, Dan and Fred but I wonder if they seemed special because we were young and didn’t really know them previously. Now, anyone they put on, we’ll think of them before they did MNF and not think of them as special. Last night was great. Part of me also wonders if the way to make Monday Nights special again is to always have two games. Was I the only one that thought last night was extra special? I will admit, the obvious downfalls….one game is too early, the other too late and it basically ruins your Tuesday, are definitely downfalls. Nonetheless it’s something to think about.
Props to Britney for bein a milf but man is she wacked out. Was Sarah Silverman’s standup the worst comedic routine in the history of comedy routines?
BABES!
thav916
September 12, 2007
Sarah Silverman was (is) absolutely retarded!
Raible
September 12, 2007
My vote is definitely for B2 to be on the sidelines for every game I watch. She is and has by far been my favorite for the longest time. As far as Mike’s cubed, I didn’t hear much, but agree that I liked MT, TK and Jaws. I definitely was glad to see Theisman get the boot, he was god awful. I almost murdered a guy with my bare hands Monday night when he told me his fave cre of all-time was Mike Patrick, Theisman and Paul McGuire, they were awful.
Speaking of awful if West Virginia continues to play early Saturday games on ESPN or it’s affiliate I am going to puke( which is going to happen the rest of the season) PAM WARD is so bad. She apparently did no research and kept calling Pat McAfee, our kicker, KEN! Then some apparent stat boy came up and corrected her. Listen, I know there’s alot of information to remember and she’s not the only person at fault for this, but as a former AMATEUR broadcaster, I hate nothing more than when a PBP or Color commentator doesn’t do there homework. To the common fan just watching a WVU-Marshall game they don’t care, but for me or anyone else watching their beloved team, they don’t want to hear names get slaughtered or frequent miscues and corrections, it ruins the atmosphere of the game. Give me Mark Jones at the very least and do away with Pam Ward!!
Wells
September 12, 2007
Pam Ward is such a BABE!
Raible
September 12, 2007
If you are into MEN
Wells
September 12, 2007
LOL
Raible
September 12, 2007
I like men more than I like Pam Ward.
Not only was she pathetic in repeatedly calling McAfee “Ken” but I blame ESPN even more. She obviously has no clue what’s going on. There’s 50 ESPN people on the crew. How doesn’t one person tell her during a commercial his name is Pat?
One funny thing about Kornheiser. When Ray Lewis was initially injured TK went off about how he’s indestructable and what does this do to the Ravens. Tirico goes, “He missed 24 games in the past 5 years and hasn’t played a full season since 2003.” Classic TK bein so wrong.
Rich Gannon did the Steelers game and I really thought he was good. Actually, when I listen to announcers it’s almost to the point where if I can stand you that means you’re one of my favorites. That’s how bad most of them are. I look for a few things and Gannon had them all. He didn’t say anything incredibly stupid or annoying. He was smooth and had a fine voice. He provided good insight at times. And possibly most important, he was critical and not afraid to call out the Browns for sucking when they sucked. I’d be perfectly fine with more Gannon.
thav916
September 13, 2007
I’ve got a disease, and the only cure for it is more Cowbell!
Raible
September 13, 2007
I really enjoy the team of Chris Fowler, Craig James and Doug Flutie on ESPN Thursday night college football. Flutie, especially is great. My favorite line from this past Thursday……
Craig James was talkin about Texas A & M’s big RB Jorvoskie Lane, going on and on about how you can’t be deceived by his size, he’s got the best and softest hands on the team.
Flutie chimes in, “He uses lotion.”
SO GREAT!
thav916
September 22, 2007
Mike Tirico has been chosen to replace Dan Patrick on ESPN Radio’s main time slot in the day, from 1-3. I really don’t like this choice. Tirico is a nice guy and a very intellectual guy but I want someone that’s also going to be funny, witty, etc. I just don’t see Tirico as that guy.
My personal top choice was Max Kellerman. He has a radio show in the NY/NJ area and is someone I really like. His smarts and knowledge are incredible and I just really like him. I think Pittsburgh’s own, Mark “The Super Genius” Madden would have been an amazing choice but not surprised that he wouldn’t get selected.
Chris Spielman has a local show in Ohio and would have also been one of my top choices. He’s great, speaks his mind and is the man.
It’s tough to really complain until I heard who the alternatives were. I’d like to see who else was thought about and considered.
Tirico will have 3 rotating sidekicks, Kirk Herbstreit (sweet), Scott Van Pelt (sweet) and Michele Tafoya (WHAAAAAA?!?!).
thav916
September 22, 2007
Click here for a great read
http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=717116
thav916
September 23, 2007
I really enjoyed the MNF broadcast last night. While a major reason why could have been the fact that the Steelers won by 31 points, I also think that the performance of Tirico, Kornheiser, and Jaworski was solid. I think that TK’s opening dialogue every week (last week on Favre, this week on the Steelers dynasty) is superb. Whenever Bradshaw went into the booth, I thought the atmosphere among the 4 was terrific.
Looking forward to the premiere of Dennis Miller’s show on Versus and Frank Caliendo’s show on TBS.
Raible
November 6, 2007
I find myself hating Kornheiser’s ingame dialogues. I love TK as a person. I think he’s great at joking around. Him with Jaws has been infinitely better than it was last year. He probably has gotten better. But the one thing that will never change is how he treats the game like he’s a newspaper reporter. And I think it’s horrible.
Far too often it’s, “Could tonight be the night that Trent Edwards takes the job and never gives it back? Just one year ago the QB on the other side of the field, Tony Romo, took the job on Monday Night and is now one of the top QB’s in the game. Could this be Edwards turn to do the same? Could it Jaws?” First of all, that’s completely ridiculous. Second of all, they had about 7 points at the time and it was the first half. I also don’t think he really knows much about the game and just has story lines set up. I could come up with many more examples of this if I felt like it.
Last week Vince Vaughn was in the booth bein real sweet of course. They mentioned Cutler and Vaughn said, “Isn’t he the guy that did a ton of reps at the combine?” The three guys had NO IDEA. NONE. Didn’t even comment on it. How am I sitting there agreeing, thinking “Yes, 23 reps, maybe 24.” and those 3 guys had no idea. I thought that was poor. They love having guests in the booth and it can be funny and good but also not sure if that should be part of the game. I’m ok with it, though, as they don’t have much great to say with just the 3 of them.
The booth is a lot better than last year, but I think Kornheiser is a newspaper writer at heart and will always treat the game like one, annoying the shit out of me in the process.
thav916
November 9, 2007
Steve Young is awful
thav916
November 20, 2007
Your boy?
I actually like Young’s insight from time to time. While I don’t know how good he would be if he were on all the time, I am fine with getting some input from him from time to time.
Emmitt Smith, meanwhile, just plain sucks.
Raible
November 20, 2007
Ha, my boy in terms of all time QB, not an analyst. Man I’m watching ESPN and think Steve Young is an ass that has been horrible and Emmitt Smith is better on every point made.
thav916
November 20, 2007
There’s no real link to it but you gotta check out Bill Simmons’ podcast interviewing Gus Johnson!!!! It’s fantastic!
thav916
November 23, 2007
Gus is announcing the Browns-Texans game and he is simply THE BEST.
thav916
November 25, 2007
The best (and probably worst) thing about Gus is this…
I am sitting in my office doing some homework with the game on in the background. Every 5th play or so, Gus starts screaming like Derek Anderson just completed a Hail Mary or something. I run in to the kitchen to see what happened when I realize that it’s just Gus being Gus…Anderson didn’t complete a Hail Mary, he simply threw the ball away after being chased out of the pocket. But it was an AMAZING throw away!
No doubt, Gus loves his sports!
Raible
November 25, 2007
My dad is convinced that Gus Johnson reminds him of a movie version Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle.
thav916
November 27, 2007
Gus is doing the Jets-Dolphins game this weekend. How hilarious will that be?!?!?!?
thav916
November 30, 2007
Wow, is there anything better than The First Team on Fox Sports Radio anymore? “Just a bunch of guys talking sports and having fun. Wake up with The Czab!”
Seriously, though, Steve Czaban, Scott Linn, and Al Galdi just bring it every morning, serving as solid competition for Mike and Mike. The beauty with the two shows is that it seems like their commercials are almost opposite each other, allowing us fans to listen to both shows each morning.
The games are clearly the best part about The First Team. From “Lock and Load” to “I’m So Done With…”, you really can’t beat the games. As Haver likes to point out, this allows The First Team to have listener input, which Mike and Mike does not have.
This morning, The First Team had the SuperFriends game on. In this game, each of the three mentioned guys, along with Steve Sullivan (I think that’s his name), have Super Powers and will answer callers’ questions accordingly.
The Czab has the Super Power knowledge of Golf and Electronics. Scott has the Super Power knowledge of Porn and Pop Culture. Galdi has the Super Power of American Idol and Pro Wrestling. And Sully has the Super Power of MMA and Poker.
This, obviously, got me to thinking about the Four Horsemen here on WCG and what our Super Powers would be. Here’s what I’ve got…
Wells: Football Knowledge/Connections, Internet/Electronics Guru, Big East Fanatic
Haver: High School Sports and Recruiting, College Sports, NBA Expert
Dean: MMA, Poker, and Anything that calls for a lot of Intelligence (History, Current Events, Philosophy, etc.)
Raible: Hockey, Soccer, Pro Wrestling
Raible
December 5, 2007
Costas is going to be at the Winter Classic…NBC means business!
Raible
December 31, 2007
Sucks Petros Papadakis isn’t announcing any of these BCS games.
thav916
January 3, 2008
Charles Davis sucks.
Raible
January 3, 2008
Was your boy Petros Papadakis on last night’s Orange Bowl?
Raible
January 4, 2008
Nah i think the Orange Bowl was Kenny Albert, Daryl Johnston and Barry Alvarez. Perhaps you were confused by Jeanne Zelasko resembling a man. I know you singled out Chuck Davis, but I actually think every single FOX BCS announcer is horrible. The premise of a network that has zero college football games throughout the year having the 5 biggest games of the year makes no sense. But then the guys they use are awful.
thav916
January 6, 2008
Good point…the FOX guys really are horrible the whole way around. We need guys like Verne, Danielson, Musberger, Herbstreit, etc.
It was great to hear Verne doing the Louisville-Kentucky basketball game on Saturday. The beauty about Verne is that he really never goes away as he covers College Sports and Golf.
Now that Gary Thorne no longer does NHL (he will do the Frozen Four, though), I really enjoy the tandem of Doc and Edzo on NBC’s broadcasts. The Winter Classic was sweet.
Raible
January 7, 2008
Kenny Mayne is awesome…the Soprano-Sparano bit was great!
Raible
January 11, 2008
Currently reading Rich Eisen’s book…a pretty solid read indeed!
Raible
January 25, 2008
V3vUUmd
thegreatawakening
January 28, 2008
Anyone paying attention to the primaries? Or anything else along those lines?
thegreatawakening
February 1, 2008
Not surprisingly, I am pretty much obsessed with the Primaries. I am a big fan of both Rudy and McCain; with Rudy recently dropping out of the race, my choice has become much easier…I fully intend to support John McCain in his bid to become President of the United States of America.
I would guess that you too, Dean, tend to lean to the right, so I am anxious to see who you plan to support. On the Democratic side, I wish that both candidates would just go away. I guess if I had to support one, I would choose Obama for the simple fact that at least he has a penis.
Back to the Republicans, I just can’t bring myself to get that into Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee. That being said, I would most certainly vote for either one should they win the Republican ticket.
Truth be told, I actually think that the next President is indeed going to be McCain. It’s hard not to at least respect a guy that spent over 5 years as a POW, eh? I think his selection of his potential running mate will certainly be interesting as I have heard the names of Rudy, Huckabee, and Joe Lieberman mentioned already.
Super Duper Tuesday is less than a week away…it’s gonna be sweet!
Raible
February 1, 2008
This year I’ll be voting republican regardless. I prefer Obama if it’s going to be a Democrat. Some say he’s the more liberal of the two, but I think he’s more interested in the country than his party. As many of the greats have said in one form or another, a man who is not a liberal at age 20 has no heart, and a man who is not conservative by age 40 has no mind. You have to choose a side to advance in American politics, and as such the view you carry most passionately will determine your public stance on everything else. In other words you can’t effectively fight for fiscal conservatism without being pro-life, or work towards a liberal domestic agenda without being anti-Iraq war. At least you can’t from public office. I’m not necessarily questioning Obama’s liberal beliefs, but I think that at the very least he’s the kind of man who will be lead by logic rather than party politics.
But like I said I expect to be voting republican. I’m not as visciously opposed to McCain as some are, although I think they have a point. It’s an interesting debate whether or not it’s worth sacrificing the Presidency to send the message that the republican party will not be taken over by mavericks or moderates. Personally I doubt any conservatives actually stay home, particularly if Clinton wins the nomination.
Sorry gotts run……more soon.
thegreatawakening
February 5, 2008
A couple weeks ago I was pretty torn, kinda leaning towards McCain, and still interested in hearing more from Romney and Guiliani. But now I’m pretty set on Romney.
There are two things about Romney that are troubling. One is the flip-flopping and the other is his lack of national defense experience. The flip-flopping is tough for me to get too upset about. Romney is a Morman republican from Michigan, and he won the governorship of Mass- that takes some politicing. I give the same benefit of the doubt to all the candidates. In addition, what’s wrong with changing your stance when new information comes to light. While that’s not the case with issues like abortion, as I already said part of success in politics means compromise. You gotta be flexibile on any socially conservative issues if you’re planing to go anywhere in the Northeast. I can understand if a a hard-core social conservative would insist on consistency on abortion, gay marriage, etc, but I think you’re missing the boat if this stuff is make-or-break for you.
Why do I like Romney? Here’s a big example:
Question from the California debate: What do you think about Arnold’s tough policy towards emissions requirements?
Huckabee, Paul, McCain: blah blah blah states rights blah blah.
I have no problem with that, but it’s a blatant party response that doesn’t tell me shit about you.
Romney: Paying a billion a day for oil to people who may use some of that money against us is bad. We’re probably hurting out enviornment as well. But if all we do is tighten regulations in our country, companies will simply open plants elsewhere. The polution will stil affect us, and we will lose jobs. States have the right to choose, but we need a global solution.
This tells me that he actually thinks about the big picture, rather than focusing on the surface level fluff.
“Help poor peope!” “Help the enviornment!” “Stop fighting!”
Those all sound nice. But reaity tends to get in the way of all these great ideas.
I think McCain is a good guy, and I believe he’s the best commander and cheif among the candidates. I think doing what you think is best, whether it goes against your party or not, is admirable not deplorable. But I don’t believe McCain’s judgment of what’s best for the country extends beyond foreign policy. I think Romney understands why things happen in our economy, and I think he will pursue a fiscally conservative agenda. That’s why I support him.
I have a lot more ammo so I hope this turns into a discussion.
thegreatawakening
February 6, 2008
Not a real shock that we would disagree, Dean, but I am glad to see that you are at least choosing the RIGHT side.
The way that I see it, the race can be broken down as follows…
-One candidate is a woman
-One candidate is black
-One candidate is a Mormon
-One candidate is a white male
For our purposes, I am discounting Mike Huckabee as a finalist. Looking purely at the demographics of the individuals involved, and I don’t wanna hear any bullshit about how this shouldn’t matter because it does, I really don’t see how anyone could vote against McCain.
While I don’t disagree with your assessment of Romney, I, for one, cannot get past his Mormon beliefs or his flip-flopping. To me, you just can’t change your beliefs, and Mormons seem to have some weird ones, on things as controversial as Abortion.
Nevertheless, if Romney somehow overcomes McCain – and all accounts seem to be pointing to a McCain-Clinton finale – you can bet your ass that I will be firmly in Romney’s corner.
Regardless of who you are “rooting” for, tonight has been quite entertaining to follow. Huckabee actually did a little better than I thought that he would, although both he and Romney have some catching up to do.
Raible
February 6, 2008
I wish I could say the Mormon thing doesn’t concern me at all. The seperation of church and state is a big deal to me, but something about those Mormons just gives me a bad vibe. At the beginning I favored McCain and this issue, along with the utmost trust I place in the man’s nat defense judgment, made it an easy pick. Even as I’ve shifted to Romney it remains a nagging concern.
You wrote in so many words that the demographic “baggage” of the main contenders makes McCain an absolute no-brainer. Obviously there are limits to even that statement, and I’m curious what they are. For example, if McCain were running on Ted Kennedy’s liberal record, Obama were running on Fred Thompson’s consistently conservative platform, and Hillary were Reagan’s daughter instead of Clinton’s wife, would you still choose McCain (at this point) on the basis of race? In such a scenario would you be able to get past Romney’s faith and consider him the lesser of evils? I agree with you that these things do in fact matter, but I’m wondering when you’d draw the line.
I don’t want to make this McCain-Romney thing too polarizing because I still go back and forth myself. There are several questions you might want to think about that I’ve been struggling with myself, but before I ask your opinions I’m interested in your stances on some basic things.
1. It sounds like you’re conservative accross the board. (Maybe not, we’ll see). How would you rank the following in order of importance *right now*: national defense and foreign policy, immigration, the economy, social issues.
2. How would you rank the following conservative ideals in terms of what’s most important to you over the next 50 years: promotion of conservative family values, economic policy, smaller government.
3. Neither of these men appears to be a predictable choice. Either could surprise us with the way they handle their business. *IF* both men could be counted on to carry out the ideas of his campaign, and if race, religion, etc, were non-factors, whose policies do you prefer, McCain’s or Romney’s?
4. I think it’s fair to say that McCain should be described as a moderate republican, if not something further to the left. Not that there’s anything fundamentally wrong with that, but the fact remains that he hasn’t been consistently conservative on immigration, the economy, or the first ammendment. I’m a slippery slope guy in addition to being generally conservative, and I’m betting you are too. Does it concern you at all that a McCain presidency could re-establish the base of the party further to the left?
5. George Washington and his boys warned against intangling international relations, and they were serious about maintaining an isolationist attitude. Much has changed since the days when it would take months to assemble a small invasion force in foreign lands. After Iraq is resolves, do you prefer to stay out of the problems of the rest of the globe, or do you believe it is either our responsibility or simply in our interests to get involved regularly overseas?
I’ll give my thoughts on all this as well. There are some issues I’d like to discuss but it makes sense to see where we stand first.
thegreatawakening
February 6, 2008
First off, please let me state that I simply feel honored talkin’ politics with Dean!
With that in mind, I think you’re 100% correct in that the demographics only take the candidates so far. In the scenario that you present, I would like to think that I could overlook Romney’s faith and consider him the lesser of the evils. Of course, the reason that I even bring up the demographics is to use it as an advantage for my argument in favor of McCain. I happen to like McCain the best, and considering that I think his backrgound is the one that I am most comfortable with to boot, I have no choice but to use it to my advanatage.
For the record, I certainly don’t want you to think that I am upset or mad with your preference for Romney at this point. Part of what makes America great is the fact that we are all free to select whomever we wish in elections such as these. Furthermore, it’s obviously a lot easier for me to sit here and not be upset with you about Romney with my guy, McCain, firmly out in front in the running for the GOP bid. With that in mind, I can tell you without a doubt that I will be throwing at the TV anything that I can get my hands on if it’s Clinton that is having her arm raised in victory in November.
To answer your questions…
1. I would like to think that I am more conservative than I probably actually am, if that makes sense. I rank National Defense and Foreign Policy #1 in your list of items (always will), followed by the Economy at #2, Social Issues at #3, and Immigration at #4.
2. I would rank the items just as you have them listed: promotion of conservative family values, then economic policy, then smaller government.
3. Believe it or not, I still think that I side with McCain’s policies. When it comes to Immigration, of which I previously mentioned isn’t of greatest concern to me, I tend to side with McCain’s policy of allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the United States and provide a path to citizenship that includes paying fines, learning English, and meeting other conditions over Romney’s policy of returning the illegals to their country of origin.
4. It doesn’t necessarily concern me that McCain is considered to be a Moderate Republican because, when it’s all said and done, I, too, am probably more Moderate than I tend to believe. In addition, I believe that the right VP selection (Rudy?) could help to offset some of the more moderate views that McCain has.
5. I believe it is either our responsibility or simply in our interests to get involved regularly overseas. I cannot stress enough my belief in the importance of our National Security and Foreign Policy; this, more than any other reason, is why I favor McCain over Romney. I believe it is our duty to defend our country and its ideals both at home and abroad (I would join the military if my fiance’ didn’t promise to break it off with me if I did so). In fact, I’ll take it a step further and say that had past Presidents put more of an emphasis on such issues, perhaps 9/11 wouldn’t have occurred (for the record, I absolutely despise when Clinton says how it took her husband to clean up after Bush I and it will take her to clean up after Bush II. Right, and had your husband spent more time running the country and less time getting head in the Oval Office, perhaps things would have turned out differently!).
That’s all I’ve got for now…hopefully, my thoughts give you a better feel for where I’m coming from. Simply put, I consider myself to be a Conservative who strongly values Homeland Security and Foreign Affairs. I look forward to reading your thoughts.
Raible
February 6, 2008
That comment about the Clintons is totally on point. Eight years is not that long- you can neglect plenty of issues and be out of the way by the time consequences are felt. Even more bothersome to me is this notion that since the economy flourished during the Clinton years, the standing administration must be responsible. That just demonstrates a lack of understanding of economics. So the tech stocks that were trading at absurdly high earnings multiples only crashed back to reality because Bill Clinton left office? I’m not saying that Clinton mortgaged the future for prosperity on his watch- my point is that many events happen *during* a presidency that are not *because* of a presidency. The economy in particular is a cyclical beast, and I’m still waiting for a democrat to highlight for me those actions of Clinton’s that caused the economic climate of the 1990s. Likewise I don’t blame Clinton for 9/11, but are we really expected to believe that the terrorists got pissed, got organized, and came after us all during Bush’s first year? This is not to admonish our leaders of all responsibility for the events of our time. But we live in a world of countless variables and it’s intellectually dishonest to blindly equate correlation with causation for partisan gain.
thegreatawakening
February 6, 2008
Your answers to the priority questions are interesting, mainly that your core philosophical emphasis is on the social issues- family values etc.- yet at the present time the economy and especially foreign policy are pushing that agenda down in priority. I think there are a lot of people who feel this way. The country has been going down the shitter morally for decades, and many conservatives feel that no one is fighting this trend. But people worry about their safety and their money, and I think many peopele are begrudgingly focusing on those issues this year.
thegreatawakening
February 6, 2008
As always, well stated by Dean!
Raible
February 7, 2008
Romney has pulled out. I’m not furious about this and I’m interested and optimistic about four years of John McCain, but I am left with a bad taste in my mouth about a few things.
One is how few people came out to endorse Romney compared to McCain. Endorsements are political in nature and it’s not uncommon for people to wait for a favorite to emerge and hop on the bandwagon, but I’m disappointed that no one would go out on a limb for Romney. There are some perfectly fine reasons to support John McCain- if foreign policy is your hot issue, if you like the concept of a non-partisan thinker in command, or if you just trust him to stick to his guns and confront the unknown challenges of the next four years in an honorable way. But I’m surprised that so many self-desribed republicans could get past his straying from the conservative agenda. It makes me wonder if: A. these people are more interested in themselves than the conservative movement, or B. the conservative movement itself has become merely an outlying faction in what’s become a coalition party. Either way I fear that this is a bad sign for the country. Conservatism doesn’t need to win out on every issue, but it needs to remain strong enough to keep things in balance.
Secondly, I was looking forward to the Romney-Clinton or Romney-Obama debates. The strategy in a primary is much different from that of a general election. If you watched any of these early republican debates you saw what amounted to a contest to see who was the most dependable advocate of party ideals. For emample, if the question was on national defense then each answer would be certain to include a line about staying on offense. It was more about voicing a commitment to conservative values than it was about analyzing the data we’re faced with and articulating actionable solutions.
This is unfortunate for Romney in my estimation because I believe that analysis, reason, and approaching issues in a way that’s more pragmatic than sentimental are concepts that are all right in his wheelhouse. The other campaigns tried hard to downplay his achievements and experience in the “real world”, but it was a mistake for voters to accept this. The most pathetic problems inherent to government are generally a product of the fundamental ways it differs from the private sector. Survival in the private sector is all about results. Survival in government is all about making friends, trading favors, and protecting your image. In the private sector you undertake a project if the benefits outweigh the costs. In government you undertake a project if it sounds like a good idea and will gain you favor. You learn a unique decision-making style when you are in business for yourself, because every dollar that you spend could’ve been in your pocket. When you’ve spent your whole life in public office you see things differently- money is simply something that flows in and needs spent on one thing or another. And apending is only one example. The pragmatic mindset is what’s important in business and it’s what we could use in Washinton. I often feel like the Democrats pat themselves on the back for the compassionate ideas they spout without analyzing the fall-out openly and honestly. (Of course it sounds nice to protect the American worker with tariffs or protect the enviornment with corporate emmissions crackdowns if you choose to ignore the repurussions that would ultimately wash away any intended benefits and hurt the consumer.) Romney is a realist, and win or lose in November I think the country would’ve benefited from the hearing him explore our problems without the republican party microscope to deal with.
I suppose my other regrets are less important. I’ll likely support McCain because I think electing either democrat carries with it several concerns. One, we’d be open to practical, real-world problems if/when what I consider to be our fairly effective healthcare and national defense strategies were altered. Two, I may disagree philosophically with government-mandated morality, but I think conservative supreme court appointees will make this country a better place- by my standards of course. Three, the liberal approach to the private sector is fundamentally bothersome to me. Business regulation and wealth redistribution are NOT the purposes of government, and regardless of what’s going on at the present moment I will always strongly oppose any momentum for those un-American concepts.
That said, I think we’ve lost a great opportunity with Mitt Romney out of this race, including the simple loss of his presence in the general election debates. In 2004 I favored Bush because I wanted 2008 to be a fresh start for both parties with no incumbant. I won’t go as far as to say I hope a democrat wins so that Romney can run again in 2012, but I certainly hope that he will remain in the picture and become an important leader in the republican party.
thegreatawakening
February 8, 2008
Good stuff from Dean…
I earned a great deal of respect from Romney as he announced to the country that he is withdrawing from the race to be named the next President of the United States. The fact that this man is willing to put his beliefs and ideals (and those beliefs and ideals shared by many in his party) above his own personal glorification is extremely honorable. The best part is that I couldn’t agree more with his line of thought: Regardless of who is in office, the most important aspect is that we, as a country, stick to our ideals and beliefs. By withdrawing with honor, I believe Romney has set himself up for a lucrative career in politics moving forward.
With that in mind, however, I have heard some grumblings today about the possibility of Romney running on the GOP ticket as the VP to McCain’s President. While I am sure that Romney is probably not interested in such an idea, I am led to believe that he would be a solid choice. Romney’s more conservative views, alongside McCain’s more moderate views on things, would certainly help to unite the Republican Party in its quest to maintain the status quo.
While I can understand the disappointment expressed by many regarding Romney’s decision to drop out of the race, I am completely heartened (is that even a word?) by the fact that there are people out there willing to put aside their own potential benefits for the benefit of the greater whole. I hope that this admirable action by Romney will indeed help to unite the GOP party and keep the woman or black man out of the Office of the President!
Raible
February 8, 2008
Let’s hit some issues…..
1. Abortion
I read an article by renowned poker thinker Mike Caro about why carrying a bias can be a productive thing. He was speaking in terms of poker of course, but I think the concept applies nicely to other things. His idea was simple- confront each poker decision with a pre-determined action in mind, in this case to check or to bet. If you choose ‘bet’ as your default action, you would look at the situation from that perspective and try to find a reason to check instead. By doing this you force yourself to truely explore a poker scenario from opposing points of view, rather than simply acting in the direction of the first piece of evidence you see. Try this out sometime and you’ll see that you quickly begin to think on a deeper strategic level. And it works in other areas as well.
I think this is a great habit to get into when dealing with politics in particular because the issues can be so polarizing. It’s natural to support those positions that’ve been taken by our party, our parents, or a politician that we respect. It’s also natural to find ourselves drawn only to the facts and evidence that support our stance when we’re “learning” more about the issue. It’s not necessarily a subconscious cop out- it’s normal for a liberal-minded person to read the New York Times, or for a conservative to listen to Sean Hannity. But to really challenge yourself and your positons try your best to find a reason to change your own mind.
This is a good execise for analyzing specific positions that you’ve held for awhile, to the point where you may have forgotten why, but I think it’s also healthy to come up with certain core value statements to serve as a starting point for exploring a new idea. As long as you identify this form of bias you can use it in a positive way. The concept of limited government is the principle I use as my home base. Anytime a controversy springs up regarding the steps our state or federal government should take to solve a certain problem, I take the position of limited govenment and try to work from there. Philosophically I believe that government was created solely to protect individual liberty. If ten of us founded a small farming town, we would’t elect a sherrif to redistribute our crops or to tell us what kinds of tools we could use. His role would be that of a peace keeper and arbiter of justice. As unified territories get larger and life gets more complex, government has a tendancy to grow and develop along with the rest of society. Some people embrace this trend as a sign of civilzation. I reject the notion.
This position is my starting point for lots of these tough questions, including abortion. As with any question of whether or not the government should be preventing this or regulationg that, my assumption is that it should not. Now it’s up to me to change my own mind. When it comes to certain social issues this doesn’t take me long, but abortion is a different because we are now forced to clarify our definition of liberty. On one hand outlawing abortion means telling a woman what she must do with her own body. Anyone who understands the sanctity and importance of property rights to the develoment of our civilization cringes at such a notion. But on the other hand we’re getting at the very essence of the need for government in the first place- the protection of liberty, particularly the liberty of those who are unable to protect it themselves. Regardless of your religious beliefs, philosophical leanings, or defintion of the seperation between fetus and human, the abortion issue represents the collision (and really what amounts to a stalemate for a lot of people) of two fundamental notions. That’s what makes it such a tough issue.
There’s another interesting dilema from a cold, practical standpoint. I think people who have abortions are by and large selfish and immoral. Do we really want such people to pass their genes on? In addition, stats show us that candidates for abortion are much more likely to become a burden on the state should they become an actual live human. Doesn’t our poor/stupid population grow disproportionately accross the globe to the detriment of society already?
I’ll let you add some thoughts.
thegreatawakening
February 11, 2008
Abortion is certainly always a hot button issue as it usually forces oneself to examine the issue from each of his perspectives…socially, religiously, etc. I think you bring up some interesting points in the respect that one should view the issue for oneself, attempting to not take into account what one has been taught and perhaps believed his entire life.
Speaking from a personal standpoint, I am Pro-Life. My typically conservative viewpoints, along with my Roman Catholic beliefs, serve as the basis for my stance on this controversial issue. Going along with what you stated, I do indeed believe it is the government’s right to protect the liberty of those who are unable to protect it themselves.
With that being said, I wish to make it clear that, while this is my belief, this is not one that I feel I need to impose my will on others. I fully believe that it is quite naive of anyone to say they believe one way or another without ever having been forced into the situation that surrounds this topic. I mean, just because I consider myself to be Pro-Life, does this mean that I would be opposed to an abortion if my fiance was raped and became impregnated from some douche bag burglar? While I would like to believe that my view would still stand firm, I think it’s extremely difficult to sit here and tell you that for sure.
The point that I am trying to make, I suppose, is that, while I consider myself to be Pro-Life, I don’t think it’s necessarily my place to force my belief on someone else. However, I do believe that is is government’s place to protect the liberties of those that cannot protect them for themselves. So, in summary, I am Pro-Life and I believe that government should be, too. However, I am not so stubborn about it to the point that I can’t understand it from the other side.
Raible
February 11, 2008
I’M PRO DEAN! (not in this conversation Raibs…IN LIFE!)
This conversation is so above me but I’m gonna post now before it gets even worse. I tend to think I’m Republican but am probably more of an Independent just because I don’t feel I’m knowledgeable enough to really know. I know Mitt is already out but even before that the Democratic race is far more important to me than the Republican. I’m basically fine with anyone becoming our next President other than Hillary. I can’t stand her and don’t want her as the President. I want Obama to win very badly. As for the GOP I’m fine with any of them.
Looking at the candidates I probably too often do the look test and similar to how I view coaches. John Kerry looks like a horse…Bush makes hilarious sound clips…I’ll vote for Bush. I just really can’t stand Hillary and everything about her. I feel like Obama’s biggest drawback is being married to Manute Bol. I could be completely wrong but I feel like Hillary is all about being a woman, not just a candidate but Obama is moreso about being a candidate not just a black one (although if his name was Pat O’Callahan I realize he wouldn’t be a candidate right now). McCain’s a badass…don’t know if it’s a positive he’s been around so long (great experience, knowledge, etc) or a drawback (if he wasn’t good enough the past 200 years why now?) but this does seem like as good as time as any for him to be our leader with our present world the way it is. Romney is a great lookin man and I obviously like that. I didn’t know him before he flipped his flop and I didn’t know Huckabee when he was fat so it’s tough for me to hate them because of how they were but yet I understand that there are concerns about them. So yeah, I can look at them and rate them on their wardrobes or good looks but ask me who’s foreign policy I like the best and I look at you with a blank stare.
At this stage in the game I’m hoping for Obama vs McCain and to go in open minded about voting for either. It’d be better for me to have just two guys to worry about and really pay attention to their actual views and what they believe in. As for some things talked about, I definitely liked what was said about Romney’s illegal immigrant policy more than McCain’s. I’m for killing all illegal immigrants on the spot so sending them back sounds a lot better to me than allowing them to stay. I don’t even know how I’d rank those options given now or in 50 years.
I know Romney is a flip flopper, and I guess it sounds like I was some huge Romney fan and I really wasn’t, but part of me also feels every politician is a bullshitter, flip-flopper, and gonna say whatever will be best for him at the time so I guess the flopping doesn’t matter to me as much as others. Cheat to win! It does seem like with some things said above, that Romney came away without the nomination but looking good and a potentially good future. This has to be McCain’s last chance so it seems to have worked out well that McCain advances and Romney lives to fight another day.
By the way, if anything I’m saying is just completely wrong, feel free to let me know but don’t try to argue with me because I really have no idea.
I kinda hate to say it because of the way I was raised and because of my parents but I personally just have to be Pro-Choice. When 16 year-old blacks have a kid I’m gonna want that kid murdered eventually so might as well take care of it early. Ok, that’s a bit harsh but there’s just too many situations like the douche bag burgular for me to say that I’m strictly Pro-Life. I feel like it’s easy for parents to just say, “Well dont have sex in college.” It’s like, “Just don’t drink til your 21.” Just unrealistic. Sometimes I just believe it’s not good for a baby to be brought into this world in a situation that isn’t good. And it’s tough for me to say that I’d be able to let 50% of me just simply taken for adoption, although it’s a great option for people that are fine with it. I’ve had friends involved with abortions and it’s tough for me to say they didn’t make the decision that was best for them.
I find myself watching more and more of Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. These primaries have really intrigued me and I like kinda knowing what’s going on. I look forward to learning a lot more about the candidates. If anyone has a great link to a big list/grid of issues and what the candidates beliefs are that would be fantastic for me.
I hate to butt in in the middle of your guys conversation but I have a good question for you. Because I’m not incredibly in to politics I actually think it’s ridiculous when someone says they agree with everything that one person believes in. In all honesty as much as I hate Hillary there are probably some issues that I’d agree with her stance on. I feel like that’s being honest with myself. Anyway, Raibs is clearly a McCain guy and Dean is/was a Romney fan. You guys know a lot more of what you’re talkin about than I do. But tell me some issues that one of the other candidates actually has a viewpoint you like more than your candidate. Gotta be some, if not many out there.
Ok, hopefully this made some sense.
thav916
February 12, 2008
That’s a great exercise. Politics are a lot like sports in that a lot people have a favorite team that they root for through thick and thin. It gets worse around election time. Whether you are firmly entrenched in one party or you are totally on-board with an individual candidate it’s easy to choose your beliefs based on your affiliations rather than vice versa. This is a great question and it forces us to keep it real. Unfortunately I’m going to have to tackle this tomorrow because it’s 3 am.
I’ll try to come up with some sources to reference the candidtaes positions. Keep in mind though that all of these people have a couple key values or beliefs that make them who they are and determine their party affiliation, but in a lot of cases they have adopted some positons for political reasons. For example northeastern republicans like Guliani are forced to go liberal on some issues in order to appease a left-leaning population. McCain has spent the year repositioning himself further right on several sunjects to assure the conservative wing of the party that they’re on the same page. And I’m sure there have been many fiscal conservatives who have been pro-choice of heart but have chosen a reversal in stance over political suicude. This is the nature of politics. You choose your line on the big issues, but the rest fall into line based on state you’re running in, the opponent you’re challenging, or the party whose nomination you’re seeking. Appeasement is a fact of life in politics, and we can only hope that the leaders we choose have sound judgment on which issues can be sacrificed and which must be stuck to.
This is kind of why I wasn’t overly concerned about Romney’s flip-flopping. They all do it anyway, and if you want a Mormon republican running Massechusets he’s gonna have to stay a little loose with his positions. If you believe that you’re the best man for the White House, but you won’t bend on an issue to gain that post, haven’t you done the country a grave dis-service?
By the way don’t disparage your understanding of politics too much. Most of the people who seem to have a lot of knowledge have simply chosen a side, along with a radio show or periodical that supports it, and only parrot the party lines. Everything you wrote made enough sense. Keep learning and talking about it, because not enough people do. I was at a bar in Boston founded 250 years ago, and it struck me that back then it would have been filled with discussion and debate over the politics of the time. When I was there we were all watching SportsCenter.
thegreatawakening
February 12, 2008
Always great to get some T-Hav action, no matter what the topic is.
If you are really confused about issues and the candidates, may I suggest heading to the following link:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/candidate-match-game.htm
At the very least, it should give you a better idea of who and what is going on.
Cheers!
For the record, my top 3 were:
1. John McCain
2. Duncan Hunter
3. Rudy Giuliani
Depending on where I put my sliders, I also had Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson show up, too.
Raible
February 13, 2008
This isn’t really a precise answer to your question because it’s not so much a position as a level of trust, but I prefer John McCain’s attitude, experience, and judgement as the commander and cheif of the United States military to that of Mitt Romney. Unfortuinately all of the GOP candidates positions have become pretty difficult to differentiate. The campaigns know what positions will make for the most favorable platform, and we’ve seen each candidate ease into a mainstream republican posture on everything.
Both McCain and Romney have come out in support of our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both have verbally committed to continuing our efforts in the region until our objectives, which remain quite vaugue, are reached. And both have articulated support for a Reaganesque expansion of our military. Assuming you agree with these positions on the surface it comes down to three questions: 1. Are these positions sincere? 2. Who is better equipped to convert their rhetoric to an actionable agenda? 3. Who do you trust to make judgements as things change?
(to be continued…)
thegreatawakening
February 15, 2008
With the questions I raised in mind, I’ve decided that I trust McCain more in the role of commander and cheif. Although I’ve made it clear that I believe that Romney is the smartest and most logical condidate, I think McCain has two things going for him that will help him in this role. One, McCain actually has an understanding of military operations that’s rooted in personal experience. On top of his own service, McCain has worked as a military historian for his memoirs about his father and grandfather. I believe these experiences give him a deeper appreciation of the causes and effects of military tactics and foreign policy strategy. Two, McCain has been criticized for flying by his own compass in the past and ignoring the agenda of his party. The conflict in Iraq and surrounding regions is losing popularity as the Democtaric Presidential hopefuls are playing on the war-fatigue of the American people. Now I’m not sure if our actions over there will prove to have been the right ones in the coming decades, but I do know that I trust military men to make strategic decisions not politicians. Romney has said he will keep troops over there for now, and to have said anything else would have finished off his campaign. We don’t know which way the wind will blow over the next four or eight years, but I trust McCain to continue on the course he believes is the right one no matter what happens or how the ignorant populace feels about it.
To summarize, McCain’s instincts are more finely tuned than Romney’s on this matter, and he will continue to be guided by them through thick and thin.
thegreatawakening
February 18, 2008
Do you guys watch the Democratic debates? I’m really starting to wonder what an Obama presidency would be like.
I wish I knew a little more about how easily a universal health plan could get passed. That’s one of the things I dislike about the Obama agenda, as well as closing tax “loopholes” that supposedly give money back to the rich*. Presidents always want to do a lot of things but wind up with new problems once they reach the White House, as Bush did with the Sept. 11 attacks. My hope will be that if elected Obama will be unable to get his plan through Congress, although the ‘06 elections really hurt this hope. (Dems won back the Congress in ‘06).
I realize that it’s naive to vote for a man, then hope that his programs fail or that his cabinet turns him to the dark side. But there’s something to be said for voting for the most gifted and talented candidate. I still plan to vote for McCain, but part of me would like to see what Obama can do.
*As an aside, all of the rhetoric when it comes to the taxes of those considered to be rich pisses me off. So what if Warren Buffet’s tax rate is less than his secratary’s? The amount he contributes to the local, state and federal governments each year is astronomical. Just once, instead of using verbage that implies that the rich are screwing the rest of us out of revenue by fighting to keep more of what they earn like everyone else, why can’t a democrat say something like this: “The rich create jobs that we need, compete in the free market enterprise system to improve the quality and cost of the products we use, and contribute more to this country in terms of tax dollars each year than the average middle class earner will in a lifetime. We also recognize that if anyone is going to get a chunk of their tax dollars back, the rich man is infinitely more likely to use those dollars as investment capital, thereby creating even more jobs and making the market for good and services even more competitive to the benefit of the consumer. Unfortunatelty, our party’s philoshophy calls for gigantic government program outlays, and it’s unrealistic for us to get the money for these projects from any other source. We would like to thank those in this country who have had the courage, foresight, and innovative spirit to succeed in a competetive business world to the benefit of the entire population of the United States, and we apologize that we need to take by threat of force assets from you that are severely disproportionate to the utility you will receive from the projects and programs that those assets will finance.” Just once.
thegreatawakening
February 22, 2008